Interesting. If I can't use Indian rosewood, I'll use whatever is available. Wood is a renewable resource. Sounds like forestry management is lame in India.
Rosewood is a 'trash tree' there, much like Locust here, grown to shade tea plantations. The trees are all harvested when they get to certain age. They're exceedingly well managed; India just knows what it has. There
used to be some large international guitar manufacture there (Jackson, pre-Fender) for inexpensive instruments that left for East Asia and has never returned. My guess is that India is trying to bring it back when China's manufacturing costs rise.
Factories and/or manufacturing in the U.S. have been up against increasing regulation and environmental hurdles since the early 70's if not before.
Even though this idea has widespread acceptance in the guitar community, it, for the most part, is not true. Aside from finish formulations and disposal methods, guitar manufacturing suffered ZERO impact from any so-called environmental regulation. It's commercial carpentry, and I can say for certain that all the furniture factories where I am from made their product almost exactly the same way they did 40 years ago. I'm sure Carlo will echo this as well. They only shut down the factories here (Berkline finally closed last year) to move them to Mexico for cheaper labor. The same BS was shovelled by Aspen Pittman in regards to tubes, too. The truth is that transistor manufacture is much more toxic and strictly regulated, but that didn't stop him from knowingly lying about it either. I'm not saying you are being dishonest, (Pittman KNEW the truth) but your belief is misinformed.
Vilifying companies for moving off shore is only going to take this thread even further down political paths we've agreed to avoid here. This thread is fine as long as it's focusing on Gibson's immediate issues and a small amount of politics is probably unavoidable within that discussion, but let's please leave the rest for other forums where political commentary is allowed or encouraged.
Factual topical discussion doesn't seem to be a problem. Your own relative impartiality speaks to that.
OTOH:
But the politics are part and parcel of the whole shebang. So considering the players, I will wait and see.
Seriously? What is your basis for this?