> There are more trees now than there were 100 years ago. You may be correct. However, coming from an avid guitarists who looks at this particular industry in

> There are more trees now than there were 100 years ago. You may be correct. However, coming from an avid guitarists who looks at this particular industry in isolation from most people; there isn't "old growth" which is a unique problem in my industry. And what trees there are, less of them are considered musical instrument grade. Also, the types of trees matter a lot (for certain things). We simply can't use Brazilian Rosewood for new builds anymore. It doesn't exist, and what does is heavily, heavily protected (To the point where instruments made before the export ban -worth $$$$$$$- are getting confiscated. Others similar to rosewood have been confiscated simply for looking like it's made from the Brazilian kind). I think, in general we were aware of our problem as consumers of trees. However, we underestimated (for musicians) how the age and growth patterns dictate what makes a good tree for X. What was untouched for centuries simply makes better wood. Essentially, the niche markets are really, really feeling this squeeze. So much so that Fender has switched to an alternative Rosewood for most if not all of their guitars, Taylor often uses (and pioneers in this subject in many ways) alternative "tonewoods" and has for years, simply because the wood that exists for these instruments even 50 years ago is simply unattainable now. Some boutique builders are forced to harvest "forgotten" logs which sunk to the bottom of lakes and rivers decades ago.