Official Luthiers Forum!

You forgot about the goats.

_________________
http://www.CostaGuitars.com
PMoMC

The hypocrisy here is deafining.Once the gov/t starts banning your EIR, ebony, BRW etc there will be a lot of whining. Sorry but gov/t bans are just another slippery slope. Well intentioned do-gooders /moralists want to ban anything that offends their sensiblities until it comes into their own back yard and starts to hurt their biz or bottom line. I/m totally against killing elephants for ivory . But the strong arm of the gov/t and its imperial decrees will not stop it 1 iota.

Granny get your goat! or was that Annie get your gun?

Elephant meat and organs is also a driver of elephant depredation. I don't believe banning the sale and use of elephant ivory will insure the survival of the species. Making something "worthless" to the people directly involved in a resource doesn't usually make that resource increase in numbers. I'm not for the whole sale slaughter of any creature (except maybe cows , chickens, and pigs - fairly intelligent animals ) but moderate use I can accept.
Although I can understand David Collins point of view, I respectfully disagree with it, and what he sees as a "reasonable middle ground" I think is unreasonable. I think there are already too many things that the government wants us to register ownership of and account for.
I don't want to see elephants leave the planet. I have always believed in Conservation, and worked in that field for several years. I have seen some well meaning government programs go astray and do more harm than good.

here's one incident where up to 300 elephants were killed with cyanide just this year. wonderful.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... anide.html

First and foremost in any government legislation is not will it do good, but will it help them to get re elected and stay in power. Beyond they're short thinking, if there is a negative outcome, they aren't worried, because they are getting your attention with the next prospective boondoggle, be it environmental, trade, health, security, etc. Occasionally they get it right, but when they don't, there is no going back or do over.

Alex

_________________
"Indecision is the key to flexibility" .... Bumper sticker

Legislation would not be necessary if there was no market for ivory. In fact, laws are not necessary if every one would just do the right thing all the time. I think that if collectively luthiers decide that we do not need ivory and we are not going to use it anymore, it would be a small step in the right direction for the preservation of the elephants.
In the end it may not make a difference, but I declare to god and country that I will not use ivory on my instruments or repairs for any reason. If anyone would like to join my pledge, feel free!

that's right: exactly why it is so important for us living in the civilized world to send the message that ivory is now tabboo/unkosher/not fashionable/uncool/not hip/tacky/haram, and so on...and as you know the affluent chinese want nothing more than to emulate western culture when it comes to aesthetics and taste. the problem's roots are not really about economics, it is about sociology.

There's a big demand for Ivory. The lower the number of elephants, the higher the price for Ivory -which will also fuel the allure for it as a material. The rarity factor. Eventually there will be no more Elephants to poach/kill. We won't be able to buy any 'new' Ivory. Our freedom and liberty removed by default. Same with any endangered species really. Once it becomes virtually impossible to buy we will just go play ball in a different park. The old park will be quickly forgotten.

It's pretty evident that elephants are on the path to becoming endangered, some species are already critically endangered as I mentioned earlier. Statistically speaking equating the elephant population numbers to a share holders histogram, 99% of shareholders would have bailed by now because there is a very clear downward trent. Maybe that's what the world needs for a wake up call. Maybe when there are 1000 elephants remaining in the wild the media will start showing baby elephants born in captivity on the news and people will actually give a s***.

For now though it's business as usual. The sad fact is that most people just don't care, or remain uninformed. Luthiers are certainly not the heart of the problem. Choosing not to use ivory may be the best thing that we can do. However, the exploitation of these creatures has a long, pathetic history and there is no end in sight. Here's a few clips to illustrate the root of the problem.





These elephants are treated treated this way for money. Similarly, they are poached for money. At least when they are poached they die quickly.

You are right and that is the sad truth, but I don't think that elephants will ever be forgotten. It would be pretty tough to forget the largest non-sea mammal on earth. One can only hope that people learn from their mistakes, but the same people poaching elephants now will simply move on to the next exploitable rare animal when the elephants are gone.

Sam I'm all in too - I publicly pledge to never use elephant ivory for the rest of my days.

When I was interested in becoming a Luthier it was my impression and later my direct knowledge that Luthiers are a pretty responsible bunch. Although my notions of things tend to be a bit romanticized at times... my belief was AND remains that Luthiers have a great reverence for the environment, the planet and the bounty that we are privileged to have available to us.

This reverence or affinity if you will also translates at some point to direct action on individual levels. Although I also don't think that Luthiers were or are the real problem with Elephant ivory I have some experience with markets.... and marketing.... and I know first hand that demand drives markets. Dry up the demand with education, regulation, penalties, etc. and you just may save an elephant. If one of these creatures gets saved because several hundred Luthiers and tens of thousands of guitar junkies who may respect luthiers learn that ivory is simply.... not... cool... perhaps just perhaps it's a start. And that's good enough for me.

Although seemingly completely unrelated it has been brought up here and that is the seemingly popular past time of government hating. Regardless of what stripe one subscribes to, if any....., government involvement does not in and of itself corrupt the cause or issue. Although the approach may be highly flawed it does not in my view undermine the fact that the slaughter of elephants is criminal AND those who may drive this demand once they clearly have had the opportunity to understand the issue but continue to participate in "creating" demand for elephant ivory are in my mind criminal as well.

Being a Luthier is a mindset as well as a skill set and it would be very interesting to me to poll the pros privately while also polling the non-pros and compare results. My guess gleaned from my own personal knowledge of many pro luthiers would be that the majority of pros, Like David, Sam, etc.would agree that elephant ivory is not necessary, alternatives are very available, and in this day and age there is NO justifiable reason to either use ivory OR contribute to the demand for same.

I also was not going to bring up guns.... but since it has been brought here already several times as examples of government hating.... here's how I roll and this is related to the issue of elephant ivory....

My personal belief is that my participation in a cause does not in and of itself have to have a measurable impact to warrant the worthiness of my participation. Just over a year ago 26 people were "shredded" including many, many little kids.... Some were hit over ten times and the carnage was unimaginable and horrific. Personally I was devastated and I really don't care what anyone may think of me for saying that I cried more than once over this tragedy.

Just like with elephant ivory my actions are not going to change the world but my own inclinations to examine anything and everything that I may have done or do were and will always be powerful and strong. At least to me.....

I contacted the local Sheriff' and found with very little effort several officers who were also literally grieving over the loss of these the Sandy Hook kids AND teachers. I indicated that I had an assault weapon that I no longer want in my sight, home, life. My request was to take it off my hands and destroy it. Although I wondered in advance if I would be perceived as a whack-job by the cops the reality was that they were wonderful with me and during one conversation two cops and Hesh here were passing around Kleenex because we all were welling up over the loss of these little kids....

Although I do not believe that current interpretation of the second amendment is correct - weapons of mass destruction such as assault rifles had not yet been invented when the constitution and BOR were crafted I do respect the rights of lawful citizens to bear arms short of weapons of mass destruction.

The cops asked me if I would donate my assault rifle that was also all tricked out... to them so that they could use it if necessary to help keep the people of my community safe. I agreed and have a written statement thanking me for my donation to local law enforcement and assuring me that my former gun would never be in anyone else's hands.

What resulted is that one of the estimated 3 - 4 million assault weapons in the US is now forever off the street and just one assault weapon, my former weapon... has virtually no chance, ever of being used to hurt a little kid. And that my friends is good enough for me.

I also made friends with the Sheriff who has a D-28 that is now better set-up than ever before.

I can't change the world, stop people from shredding little kids.... or personally save an elephant but I can be thoughtful, avoid falling into the "trap" of letting passionate feelings about government blind me as to right and wrong, and maybe just maybe through personal direct action help diminish and hopefully one day eliminate the demand for things such as elephant ivory.

Not sure about Luthiers being all that responsible, meaning they are probably no different than your average craft worker. At the end of the day Luthiers are just people and probably not as homogeneous as we like to think i.e. good and bad but mostly good. Ivory isn't that much of a big deal with 99% of Luthiers anyway. Pardon the expression but the elephant in the room is illegal Braz. Rosewood - some of which does get through and is knowingly bought by. . . luthiers.

Not to get sidetracked but I can respect your POV Hesh and I agree on the ivory side of things. As far as guns- my weapons are much, much, much more likely to prevent/intervene in such acts than cause them.

The guns are not the problem- some of the people that wield them are. I don't want to get into a gun debate but here in Alaska I can go to the store and buy a .44 MAG or a .223 in under an hour. We have far less break ins than DC where handguns are illegal. To break into an Alaskan home you have to be straight crazy and ready to die because everyone here is armed to the teeth to a level that is on par with Sweden, where every citizen is issued a semi-auto carbine rifle.

The same logic applies to elephants. The guns are not the problem, the people who wield them are. And that is why I choose to keep mine. I won't be taking out any elephants or schools full of children, that much I can guarantee. However I choose to maintain a level of protection from the same types of people that would engage in those behaviors as well as the D H S.

The "elephant" in the room is actually Madagascar Rosewood, which holds a higher threat classification than BRW as it is classified as "endangered" and BRW is listed as "vulnerable".

Hi Michael, thank you for your thoughts and I wholeheartedly agree that Luthiers are simply people too which includes the likelihood that Luthiers are somewhat representative of the general population at large. But where I beg to differ is that in my considerable experience getting to know many of the Luthiers who make their livings with Lutherie it has been my impression that there does exist a sensitivity to issues such as ivory, elephants, rain forests, etc. This is the great reverence for one's environment that I speak of.

It does not make us better people but perhaps our direct associations with issues such as this one (ivory not guns....) makes us better informed in general about specific issues that may impact our livelihood and trade.

We're all doing the best that we can I am sure but the fact remains that there is nothing besides bling (which is in the mind of the beholder anyway....) that ivory provides that cannot be matched or exceed with alternatives that are readily available, cheaper, and of course more instep with being responsible stewards of our planet AND in some cases not offending a segment of one's own market....

Government involvement in any issue is no excuse to summarily dismiss the potential worthiness of the issue. For example I personally am by no means a good choice for championing the ivory/Lutherie issue but simply because I am taking a position, respect me or not, does not in any way and should not in any way detract from the importance of the core issue.

Reading this thread the impression that one gets is that if the UN or US government takes a position it has to be incorrect.... Wrong.... and a pretty sophomoric position to take I will add. Instead what should be the happening in any civilized discussion is that personal bias even bordering on hatred of something should not be permitted to discount the importance of the core issue. This is what I object to here in this thread.

The question always was is ivory necessary for us to build great guitars, instruments? The answer in my view is absolutely not. Plain and simple and government, guns, individual liberty, etc. are off-topic and in some cases, not all, nothing more than a poorly veiled attempt to enlist support for one's position by also introducing highly-charged, political concerns. Red meat if you will.

For me personally no one here woke up yesterday in terms of not being on this planet for at least a while. You cannot have participated in life in general these days without knowing that at least in the US ivory has been banned for decades. As such any further teeth in regulations that may be legislated should come as no surprise, like it or not.

Elephant ivory is not a prerequisite to making a great sounding, looking, playing, and well built guitar.

Thanks for your thoughts Michael, much appreciated. Happy Holidays to you as well!

Ernie posted:
"The hypocrisy here is deafining.Once the gov/t starts banning your EIR, ebony, BRW etc there will be a lot of whining. Sorry but gov/t bans are just another slippery slope. Well intentioned do-gooders /moralists want to ban anything that offends their sensiblities until it comes into their own back yard and starts to hurt their biz or bottom line. I/m totally against killing elephants for ivory . But the strong arm of the gov/t and its imperial decrees will not stop it 1 iota."

Well said!
How many here will pledge to never use BRW, ebony, of some of the other woods we love so well for guitar making? How can one be assured that the wood you buy hasn't been poached, and doesn't using existing legitimate stocks keep the market demand and value high? Perhaps they should burn the existing stashes so it doesn't fall into the wrong hands, as they do with ivory.
There are many cruel and inhumane things people do to animals and to each other. The conditions inside a modern veal calf barn are certainly no better than what the videos of the baby elephants showed. We can blame the dairy industry for the excess number of bull calves that promote this industry -boycott milk! In Rwanda bullets were too expensive to kill people with, so they used machetes.
I don't own any assault weapons and very little elephant ivory ( a few old piano keys, a small piece of tusk from a broken thermometer) and I am unlikely to invest heavily in the ivory trade. I do have some mammoth ivory and like to use it for nuts and saddles - it polishes up nice and has some interesting colors. A total ban on ivories would not have a great impact on me personally, but it's just one more piece of ineffective and useless legislation.

Hi Joey!

I'm not looking to get into a gun debate (or gun fight....) with anyone either and I have to tell you that Alaska is in my view different - you guys have real and present dangers up there that you need to be well protected from. I understand this, respect this, and would support this as well.

I am no stranger to guns and have had a fascination with them most of my life. I'm an experienced shooter myself and a former competitive shooter. I support personal ownership of guns but I also support my and everyone else's right to life... to not be slaughtered by weapons that from the very calibers that they employ to the features that they offer were originally designed to kill human beings.

Something that I have not yet heard in the media is the fact that the weapon used to shred all these little kids was an assault weapon that was purchased after the 10 year assault rifle ban was permitted to expire by the prior administration. Sure other choices may have been employed but knowing a bit about combat too... an assault weapon is specifically engineered to be as efficient as possible in killing human beings. Had that little bastard who was the shooter had to use your 44 magnum it's likely that after the first round that kicked so hard that he lost all of his front teeth.... potential victims would have had more time, more choices, and the carnage would have been less than it was.

Where's it stop? Is a personal nuke in our future? Or a surface to air missile capable of shooting down an airliner? Is this what the 2nd amendment wished to address? I think not.

For me my position changed dramatically after Sandy Hook. Unfortunately I had another experience when I was a young man where as a result of wanton violence I spent and afternoon helping to pick up little tiny arms and such and place the remains of kids in body bags. Sandy Hook brought me back to this terrible time where some of these little kids had sat in a circle around a fire with me as I strummed an old Guild and we sang and laughed an evening away.

So sorry for digressing, I am guilty of exactly what I didn't like to see here on the OLF. I also brought up guns, engaged in a sophomoric, diversionary argument. No excuses, I'm just as guilty as the next guy of getting off topic.

The point that I would like to make if I have the skills to write well enough to make this point is that no one is trying to take yet another highly emotional, personal liberty, thing from any of us. Some folks want to stop the slaughter of elephants and I am inclined to wholeheartedly support them.

Ivory is not necessary, period!

Here is wishing you Joey the best of the Holiday Season as well!

My stepdad owns a farm that used to support 50 cattle. I can promise you that they were never treated in the way those baby elephants were treated.

Dairy cows are not beaten. They've already been beaten into submission through selective breeding (genetics). Hell a modern cow didn't exist 100 years ago.

As for veal I don't eat it, not because I'm on a moral high horse- but because I'd just rather eat Filet Mignon at that price point.

Whatever position you take, comparing elephants (threatened wild animals) to Cattle/baby cattle (genetically engineered, delicious atrocity in gross excess that could not survive in the wild) is purely asinine.

Merry Christmas to you and yours as well, you are a good man Hesh.

I wish I shared the same trust in the world/gov't that you do. I am moving back to NY in 10 months and I am really not a fan of how the 2nd amendment does not exist there anymore. Especially when I see MRAPS on the streets of Colorado following last week's shooting. I've been on convoys in those things in Iraq, what the hell are they doing on our streets in the US?

The fact that the gov't claims to be broke but can afford several $600K combat vehicles for the D H S to be dispatched on the streets of the US tells me all I need to know. I really wish you would have kept that assault rifle. If ever a time comes when we need to use them, it's better off in you hands than the authoritarian. That is the basis of the 2nd amendment, to have the right to possess the same firepower that could potentially be used against you by your government.

My Christmas wish is that those that do use ivory re-consider. That is all.

Joey you made a good friend today if you want one! You are a VERY good man and here is a HUGE and utterly sincere thank you for your very valued service as well!

I wanted to tell you why I don't fear government or feel the need to be armed to the teeth for the possibility of tyranny, oppression, genocide....., or dismissal of constitutional rule of law.

First there is the issue of scale.... I don't for a moment think that a .308 assault rifle and the skills to use it are any match for what you and I have paid for in terms of what the US military is equipped with.... Thermal imaging, drones, WMD.... etc. you and I are no match for what we have created....

But the real reason why I will never fear government and the military that they "may" control. Our military is made up of America's finest sons and daughters and as such I do not believe for a moment that folks such as You Joey would ever participate in an effort to encroach on the liberties of the people, your own parents, siblings, lovers, friends, etc. There is the all important issue of what is a "lawful order" and of course the individual judgement of those who may be ordered to carry out an order, unlawful or lawful. Kent State aside....

I'm not a person of faith but one of the very few things that I do have faith in is the idea that our finest, America's sons and daughters, fathers, moms, uncles, etc. would never turn on the people. Call me a space-cadet or what ever my faith is in folks like You Joey and I can see from this conversation this morning that my faith is very well placed indeed!

For all of time there has been a segment of the US population who stockpiles beans and bullets, batteries, alternative currency (precious metals, matches...., etc.) and even build elaborate bunkers/shelters for the possibility that such a day when this is needed may come. And for all of time in America, the time that we have existed... there has never been a need for such things. Unless, of course one still supports slavery.... The gun lobby who only really represents corporations anyway and uses individual membership by a constant stream of red meat, fear mongering, and even a deliberate effort to prevent any scientific studies of guns, laws, etc. in any effort to glean data so that non-emotional, rational suggestions may one day be offered to the population as viable choices.

It's all self-serving, we are not at all the real concern of the gun lobby, we are being used as "chumps" and purposely rallied to support a position that clearly is not in the best interest of the US or at present where polling is either. The gun lobby is actually a very small group considering and like with many things in Washington has WAY too much say, has not offered to be part of any solutions, just like a political party enlists the support of what is basically strange bedfellows in a common cause egged on by fear mongering but ultimately motivated by sheer greed and profiteering on the part of gun manufacturers.

I'm not willing to be a chump.... You can have my "chumpness..." from my cold, dead hand....

Again where it changed for me was Sandy Hook. What some may call an emotional view I maintain was a terrible tragedy and my position will not change, ever. If the shredding first graders does not at least resonate with someone for a New York minute that someone is someone who I have no time for.

Thanks again Joey and I hope to meet you one day and do some strumming!

Joey, I'd like to take a moment to tell you something, too.

Joey, I'm a fan of debates. I think they can be constructive and give people opportunities to be exposed to different points of view. In fact, Joey, the most interesting debate I've heard was recently on NPR, on this very subject. After both sides did their thing, the moderator asked them something I've never heard asked in a debate before. The moderator asked both parties what troubles them most about their own point of view. The responses there were very interesting, because, Joey, even though people often present themselves as being all-in, they rarely are.

That said, Joey, I'm not a fan of awkward debates. And I hope you're enjoying the Mahogany!

If we all sang khumbaya around a campfire everything would turn out well in the zeitgeist or the liberal world view. Unfortunately or fortunately our brains consist of one side that feels things emotionally and the other side which is logical , rational, quantitaive, and logical. Some of us speak/write from a dominance of one side or the other. This is where the problem starts and will never be resolved until both sides of our brain are in harmony with each other i.e. the feeling side /logical side making decisions. We will always be at loggerheads with one another as long as one side predominates over the other . The emotionalists are yelling at the cool thinking rationalists and wondering what/s the big deal? I rest my case.

ah this is the allure of gun ownership: the romantic notion of heroically undoing wrong, stepping up to a bully, saving the underdog from a villain, just as clint eastwood or charles bronson or bruce willis do in so many films. unfortunately it is dead wrong- your personal weapons, and everyone else's, are much more likely to end up being used in a domestic incident, an accident, or a suicide, and NOT stopping a bad guy. lose the fantasy.
and there are all kinds of solid statistics that back this up....

Todd, you have a number of salient an insightful points in your post; however, I would caution you from assuming that your position is the "rational" one and that the other position that supports the ban is an "emotional" one. In one of my graduate school classes, I took a course on education and law. It surprised me to read the minority dissent and majority opinion for many of the important supreme court cases. Even the cases that I thought were so obvious in one direction - the opposing view rendered by these judges showed tremendous insight into the culture and how the effect of the law would resonate. In short, the situation was often less clear than I thought it was.

If anything, I tend to be very anti-government. I voted for Ron Paul in the last election if that gives you any idea about my political persuasion. However, I do think we need obvious limits -- especially if we have shown that as a culture/people we are acting irresponsibly. The gun issue is simple in my mind -- solid background checks for every gun sale and no sales of weapons that can mow down dozens of people (automatic weapons and the like). This won't stop the problem as we will always have crazy and disgruntled people in the populace -- but it would minimize damage done during these rampages and still give the population a way to defend themselves.

The issue with ivory is quite simple -- removing the desire for ivory is the only way to end this problem. Of course, America can't solve the problem alone but it would be a good "start". I think most of us in this discussion recognize the problems that come with legislation -- but a well-written law with the exemption for protected products would go a long way to creating ivory as a "taboo" item. This is probably the big grey area as your faith in legislators will determine if you think an effective law can be passed.

If for nothing else, I certainly can't don't understand why anyone here wouldn't want to pledge to not to use Ivory parts on their guitars anymore. That is taking individual responsibility and does not involve the government.

Overall, I have enjoyed this thread -- although some posts were condescending, every post was for the most part very civil.

Todd:

"Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."

John F. Kennedy

It's easy to attempt to disenfranchise those whom you do not agree with by claiming that they are emotional in view. If the shoe fits they say.... so I will admit to being influenced by my emotions. After all as JFK said I am only mortal and as such flawed, imperfect, etc.

Solutions to gun violence such as Sandy Hook, Columbine...., what was it last week Colorado.... again, or any of the 20 or so school massacres that seem to be unique to the US in these numbers and with this level of carnage are not armed guards at schools, arming teachers, arming students.... which has been suggested as well believe it or not.... So our kids can start every day at school learning to be constructive, civilized participants in our society seeing and knowing that guns are what makes them safe? Truth be told there may not be a solution.... that's the real rub for me.

I remember being a kid in grade school as we practiced our under-desk drills because we were told that there was a real and present risk of being vaporized by nuclear conflict. I also remember trying to look up the dress of Julie K. but that is another story.... Anyway even as a kid when I thought about WHY this was happening it scared the hell out of me. Perhaps a good thing to some but to me even though I may not be the brightest CFL bulb in the pack... fear is not how I learn best.

I support an outright ban on assault style weapons. I also support a ban on high-capacity mags, devices that turn semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons. I also support back-ground checks with no way around it. What we have been doing here, or, conversely not doing has and is not working - the price is now WAY to high.

There is much more to do too such as properly funding mental health access and treatment AND looking at what it is in our American culture that causes us to be number one in the world, in first place, the champions over all others..... in killing each other.....

But I can tell you that at least in the instance of Sandy Hook had assault weapons not been readily available this one shooter would have had to use something else. His weapon was indeed purchased after the expiration of the prior US assault weapon ban. And again sure other choices were available to him, Glocks, shotguns like in Colorado last week (by the way the shooter took his own life and was not terminated by an armed guard...) but without something as efficient as an assault weapon as you and I both clearly know and understand the potential victims would have had more time, choices, that likely would have spared some kids and teachers.

It's one thing to claim that one is not a government hater so as to avoid being perceived as a nut case but what else do you call it when one has a narcisistic POV that time and time again seems to spawn the impression that government stays up late at night plotting how to take your guns, liberties, and as you have put it on this very forum more than once "other people's money..."

If you want to bring the liars in government to justice and issue swift and harsh punishment as a deterrent by example, as you said..... does this mean executing our leaders? And who in your estimation is entitled to make these judgements? You? The military?

Regardless here is wishing you and yours Todd the best of Holiday seasons. My family is gathering at my house this afternoon and I can't wait to see them all. This includes three little kids, two girls and one boy named Boo who every time I see them they are getting taller and taller. My hopes are great for them but most of all I sure hope that the rest of us do not do anything to prevent them from having all the opportunities that we had.

Legislation with unintended consequences can be repealed, changed, modified, what ever. A kid killed from gun violence will never be back to see the park built in his or her honor as a memorial to their short lives.