Are Your Papers in Order? 9/20/2011 9:50:00 AM 
Recent articles in the Wall Street Journal and other news media have brought to light some of the implications of the recently amended “Lacey Act”.
The articles center around the government raids on Gibson Guitar factories in November of 2009 and again on Aug. 24 of this year. The issue is whether or not Gibson Guitars is guilty of importing wood (ebony and rosewood) from foreign countries in a manner that violates the laws of those countries. The violation in question focuses on the status of the woods in question. Were they raw materials or manufactured goods? What degree of processing qualifies them as manufactured? Does the accompanying paperwork correctly reflect this status? This is a complicated issue, involving interpretation and enforcement of the laws of foreign governments and no doubt requires the expertise of specialized lawyers.
In the meanwhile, according to the CEO of Gibson as recorded in one Wall Street Journal article, “the raids in Memphis and Nashville cost Gibson about $1 million in seized wood and documents.” They’re now fighting in court to get the materials released while the case is pending. (By the way, Gibson Guitars has a reputation amongst environmental groups for promoting responsible foresting.)
The original Lacey Act was enacted in 1900. One of its main purposes was to regulate trade in bird feathers that were popular on ladies hats but were reducing the species of some birds to the verge of extinction. It was amended in 2008 to include wood and other plant materials. As part of the enforcement of this amended law, the U.S. government prosecutes importers of certain types of wood who violate the laws of foreign countries, as is alleged in the case above. Some wood manufacturers are in favor of enforcing the recent amendment to the law since it should reduce unfair competition from unscrupulous companies that import wood illegally and therefore more cheaply.
I understand the importance of caring for our environment and have promoted the use of green methods and materials in quite a few articles. I also understand that regulations are necessary to protect us and the environment from those who are only interested in maximizing their profit regardless of the consequences to others.
The targets of this law, however, reach far beyond large scale importers. Distributors, end users, and even owners of products that incorporate restricted materials can be held accountable as well. Lawmakers have gone awry by holding small manufacturers and individuals liable for questionable materials held in their possession. How can the government hold these people responsible when they have no control over importers or foreign governments? This is not justice.
A small to medium sized woodworking company, for example, has no reasonable way of even knowing the laws governing the importing of the wood they purchase. Let’s say a company buys some rosewood from a lumber supplier. The federal government can raid the company and demand proof that the wood in question was harvested and imported legally. How can the company provide proof? If they bought it recently, their supplier might have provided some kind of compliant paperwork, but should the woodworker be held responsible for maintaining records on all the woods they use? It’s ridiculous.
The implications of this law are even worse for the private owner of a musical instrument or high-end furniture. This person may not be able to even identify the species of the woods incorporated into their possession, and yet they’re held responsible for each and every component material contained in that item. When an item is brought in or out of the country, customs officials can demand proof of the legality of every regulated component material that they find. If your papers aren’t in order, the item can be confiscated and you can be fined and/or prosecuted.
The law states that the enforcing agency can use discretion in prosecuting you. They can decide if you used due diligence in determining whether or not the material in your possession was imported legally. They can establish how much they think you could have afforded to pay to secure proof. Anyone who has dealt with the government understands the high-handed nature of government bureaucracy. They don’t care…they don’t have to…they’re the government!
Laws like this even burden the government itself by forcing it to add or expand its agencies since more regulations require more enforcement resources.The cost of this expansion, in turn, increases the national debt and demands more money from taxpayers. Most people now realize that this unbridled spending can’t go on.
Our government needs to reverse its current trend of imposing regulations indiscriminately. Lawmakers need to be judicious in creating new regulations and they need to make sure they don’t inflict innocent people and companies with obligations that are unwarranted. They must remember that every expense they add to the cost of doing business is hurting our economy in a very direct way. We need to remind them of this through our votes and, if we can, through direct contact with our legislators.
|
Comment on this story
|
New Comment
Created by Makendra on 10/31/2011 12:38:31 PM
Boy that rlelay helps me the heck out.
|
|
Re: Lacy Act
Created by Kim Kaiser on 9/22/2011 3:45:53 PM
Thank you for your comments, David. You raised a question that relates to a particular concern of mine. That is, “Who are OUR lobbyists…?” I couldn’t find any trade associations that indicated any lobbying efforts for the hardwood flooring industry.
My concern has been for woodworkers in general so I’ve been looking into wood products manufacturers trade organizations that might provide this service. The Wood Products Manufacturing Association (WPMA) would seem to be the most promising possibility. Their website, wpma.org , doesn’t mention any lobbying efforts so I called to ask and am awaiting a response. I’ll let you know.
I did find that the Association of Woodworking and Furnishing Suppliers (AWFS) does lobby in conjunction with the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and two woodworking machinery trade organizations. AWFS is the organization that runs the Las Vegas show and belongs to a related industry (suppliers to the woodworking industry) but doesn’t directly represent woodworkers themselves.
I’ll keep at it.
|
|
Lacey Act
Created by David Harrison Sr. on 9/20/2011 12:50:59 PM
John, I agree with you on all points.
I have to say that it is unfortunate that today it seems lawmakers feel the necessity to keep regulating....after all that is part of their job description....however, it now seems quite typical that a well intentioned " newly created" law has not been well thought out....it amazes me that there are many of us that can point out the problems and inequity of a law after it is passed......where are the discussions and the scrutiny of these potential laws before they are passed.
When you turn on the Gov. channel and watch such things being discussed in the House or Senate.....most of the time many of the "lawmakers" are not even present.....they have apparently already made up their minds about these things from other sources.....their lobbyist. So that leads to our lobbyist....who are they and what real voice do they have in such matters? Who are OUR lobbyist in the hardwood flooring industry? And....is common sense about regulations only applied with the help of which ever lobbyist manages to get the closest or donate enough funds to a particular campaign? We should not have to purchase common sense in our regulations through campaign funds etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|