One has to locate this incident within a more global context. If one does that, then the Agreement can be seen as just the beginning, and not the end, of a long political process.

Gibson had to give up something in order to get the Agreement. But what it gave up was precious little.

I would encourage those who want to deal in the world of objective truth, and not in the world of distortions, half-truths and outright lies of the fringe element of the enviromentalist movement, to go to Gibson's webpage and read the actual Agreement signed by the federal prosecutors and Gibson's attorneys. If one does that, what one finds is that the only thing the feds had to hang their hat on was their own self-serving interpretation of some arcane technicality in Madagascar law. What the Lacey Act does is it allows the U.S. federal government to prosecute violations of other countrys' laws. Madagascar law allows the export of ebony, but only if that wood is "finished," otherwise the export is deemed illegal. So this entire imbroglio boiled down to whether the ebony that Gibson imported was "finished" or not. The law was promulgated by the Madagascar government to protect the interests of manufacturers and labor in Madagascar, and has nothing to do with the protection or preservation of forests.

The feds also alleged illegal import of wood from India. But that part of the government's case fell apart when Gibson, as Gibson has stated in previous press statements, obtained an affidavit from the Indian government that they had violated no Indian law.

So the STATEMENT OF FACTS portion of the Agreement is a confirmation of what Gibson has been arguing all along, and that is that this had nothing to do with curtailing illegal logging, and everything to do with enforcing India's and Madagascar's labor laws. That was quite an admission that Gibson won from the government, and is a most formidable weapon to be used in future battles.

The next step in the process is already well under way, as you can see by reading the following statement issued a couple of days ago by "The Journal of Commerce," which can be found on the internet here:

joc.com/.../...

But one should not assume that Fish & Wildlife and its cohort of fringe environmentalist supporters has a monopoly on the moral high ground here. Quite the contrary, there are "evil" self-serving business interests lined up on Fish & Wildlife's side as well, as this quote from "The Tennessean" confirms:

“There was praise for the Gibson agreement from the U.S. hardwood industry, which strongly supports the Lacey Act because of provisions that disallow importation of some woods that the industry contends might unfairly compete with American lumber.”

“ ‘I feel those of us who have been working hard to defend the Lacey Act have been somewhat vindicated by the agreement and Gibson’s acknowledgment that they imported illegal materials and
did not follow due care,’ said Jamison French, chairman of the Washington, D.C.-based Hardwood Federation and chief executive of Northland Forest Products.”

The U.S. hardwood industry spent more than $17 million last year alone in lobbying and campaign contributions.

Any delusions that Fish & Wildlife is a sincere and genuine guardian of the environment, and not just the handmaiden of corporate interests, should have been dispelled when, a couple of years before the BP Gulf blowout, it placed its imprimatur upon "the conclusion that deepwater drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico posed no significant risk to wildlife, despite evidence that a spill of even moderate size could be disastrous, according to federal documents," as reported by the NY Times:

nytimes.com/.../...