| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| lacey restrictions http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=44411 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Eric Reid [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | lacey restrictions |
This is why we have to deal with Lacey and CITES: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141023-rhino-wildlife-trafficking-south-africa-safari-club-nra-lacey-act-hawks-operation-crash-groenewalds/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ng%2FNews%2FNews_Main+(National+Geographic+News+-+Main) The same sort of thing is going on all the time in wood harvesting. Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe it does. |
|
| Author: | Clay S. [ Sat Oct 25, 2014 7:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: lacey restrictions |
As some of the posters commented it seems like the hunters are being let off because they are claiming ignorance of the crime. If they were told they could shoot some of the aborigines legally would they have done it? Another side of the argument is provided by this video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8QWqWQnvdQ The middle ground is never a popular place to be. |
|
| Author: | Lonnie J Barber [ Sat Oct 25, 2014 8:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: lacey restrictions |
It's a touchy for sure. Trying to relate it to the wood situation. It just isn't the same thing. We're running out of animals but the wood situation is a political problem. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
| Author: | Mike_P [ Sat Oct 25, 2014 12:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: lacey restrictions |
Lonnie J Barber wrote: It's a touchy for sure. Trying to relate it to the wood situation. It just isn't the same thing. We're running out of animals but the wood situation is a political problem. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk it's also possible to view it as this: animals reproduce to maturity at a far faster rate than a tree... deforestation IS occurring and has more consequences than simple lack of wood... it's all politics which means it's ripe for corruption... it really all boils down to greed and being self centered...apply that concept to the present F/T problems and it's rather frightening...add in a dash of sociopathy and it's a nightmare |
|
| Author: | Lonnie J Barber [ Sat Oct 25, 2014 12:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: lacey restrictions |
I agree but you make my point. The Rhinos are disappearing. When one of those goes missing people ask where. When a tree in a rain forest goes missing it's more of the politics. The wood is a natural resource for third world countries. It's their am "I going to eat if I don't get to cut trees"? There's a parallel there somewhere. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
| Author: | Glen H [ Sat Oct 25, 2014 1:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: lacey restrictions |
I'm not justifying using endangered/rare woods, but at least a tree is converted into an object of function and beauty (on our side of the issue) that can be enjoyed for years, but just what the heck comes out of the senseless slaughter if a rhino? Aphrodisiac? Maybe some knife handles (which could be wood anyway)? Horrible waste IMO Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
| Author: | Clay S. [ Sun Oct 26, 2014 4:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: lacey restrictions |
Even more senseless when you consider the horn can be "harvested" without killing the rhinoceros (and it will grow back). As with animals, the cultivation of rare and valuable trees could make them less endangered, but if there is not potential economic gain it probably won't be done. |
|
| Author: | Lonnie J Barber [ Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: lacey restrictions |
Do you think the Lacey Act does what it's supposed to do? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
| Author: | Glen H [ Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: lacey restrictions |
I think it achieves its goal indirectly. For example, I personally will not touch a piece of Brazilian rosewood because I don't want the hassle associated with it. Kill the market, kill the demand. It does create unfair problems for people who already have it in any form. Being in compliance seems pretty confusing and difficult. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
| Author: | Quine [ Wed Oct 29, 2014 2:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: lacey restrictions |
Lacey Restrictions?? Sounds like some type of lingerie malfunction |
|
| Author: | Clay S. [ Wed Oct 29, 2014 4:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: lacey restrictions |
"I think it achieves its goal indirectly. For example, I personally will not touch a piece of Brazilian rosewood because I don't want the hassle associated with it. Kill the market, kill the demand." Kill the demand, kill the trees, (they aren't worth anything) plant corn.... "Lacey Restrictions?? Sounds like some type of lingerie malfunction" It doesn't take long for contental drift..... |
|
| Author: | dzsmith [ Wed Oct 29, 2014 6:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: lacey restrictions |
I seem to remeber there was some talk of banning mammoth ivory. Man, you do not want to mess with the native Americans! |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|