The Alpaca Registry and the

International Llama Registry: A History

By Mike Safley

The Alpaca Registry that we know in 2004, which has tens of thousands of alpacas, thousands of owners, a corporate structure with a board of directors, newsletter, DNA testing and other high tech trappings was an impossible dream back in 1986. Today's Registry was put together, by a hard working group of alpaca pioneers, one decision at a time. The path was not always clear, the early Alpaca Registry was an orphan of the International Lama Registry (ILR) and the alpaca community had to battle to maintain control of its database and the decisions affecting the registration of alpacas. The ability to control our own future, free of the ILR, that the Alpaca Registry Inc. (ARI) enjoys today, eighteen years later, came at a price, and this freedom should be held dear by every alpaca breeder.

Susan Stackhouse, a microbiologist, trained at the University of California at Berkley, purchased some of the first alpacas imported into the United States, had the foresight to understand what a little place on a computer, called the Alpaca Sub-Registry, could become. Susan was a visionary and could see a fully functioning Alpaca Registry. Beginning with her feature article, in the January/February, 1987, Alpacas®!, "Should we Bother to Register our Alpacas?", she was the registry's champion. In the June/July 1987, Alpacas®!, Susan authored another article entitled: The Dawn of Blood Typing, which announced that Dr. Cecile Penedo, of the University of California at Davis, had found a way to use blood typing to prove paternity in llamas by examining a small number of alpacas, twelve to be exact. Dr. Penedo was eager to expand the study so that she might develop a set of blood markers for alpacas. Susan got the word out, writing:

"It is very important that alpaca owners, particularly those with domestically bred individuals whose paternity might be resolved by analysis of the blood type of the individual, its dam, and possible sires, take up Dr. Penedo's generous offer soon and submit alpaca blood samples for testing."

The next issue of Alpacas®! contained a "Blood Typing Update" and Susan announced that 59 alpacas had been successfully blood typed. She finished by writing:

"All alpaca owners and breeders should consider this a double opportunity. First, it is a unique opportunity for the alpaca industry as a whole to have a blood typing system available from the infancy of domestic alpaca breeding; second, it is a chance for individual owners to resolve some of the paternity questions surrounding many of the first generation domestic alpacas born to Chilean imports."

In the March/April 1988, issue she announced that 120 plus alpacas had been blood typed by UC Davis. Science had arrived for an ancient breed: Susan led the way.

THE ALPACA SUB-REGISTRY

Before we created the Alpaca Registry, there was the Alpaca Sub-Registry of the International Lama Registry (ILR). The Sub-Registry was the first place alpaca breeders could record births and create pedigrees. The ILR came into existence in 1986, as the result of a merger between the Llama Tatoo Registry, created by Doug and Jamie Sharp, the Camelid Identification System, created by Paul and Sally Taylor, and the Patterson Studbook. (Kay Patterson, and her husband, Richard, also imported the first alpacas into the United States.)

Terry Price, a lawyer, was eventually elected president of the ILR and the new organization created several sub-registries including: guanaco and alpacas. The Alpaca Sub-Registry was used by the alpaca breeders until the fall of 1988, when the Alpaca Registry, was created by the Alpaca Owners and Breeders Association, (AOBA) whose Bylaws, Article I Purpose, Section 1.5, contained the following statement: "To establish and support an Alpaca Registry."

THE ALPACA REGISTRY (AR)

The alpaca community registered their alpacas according to the rules of the ILR's Alpaca Sub-Registry until the AOBA membership approved the new Alpaca Registry document. The registry was announced in the Winter 1988/89 edition of Alpacas®! by Susan Stackhouse in an article entitled, "New Registry a Reality."

The new registry was copied from the Morgan Horse Registry at the urging of Susan who was a Morgan horse breeder even before she was an alpaca breeder. The Preamble of the new Alpaca Registry acknowledged its origins with the following passages:

"Most of all, thanks to the American Morgan Horse Association for its kind permission to use parts of its time proven register."

"Every attempt has been made to provide a registry that is simple to understand, relatively inexpensive to operate, as foolproof as possible, and effective for identifying and protecting the alpaca gene pool in North America. In this pursuit the American Morgan Horse Association Register Rules and Regulations was relied on as a model in creating the Alpaca Registry. Over the years the American Morgan Horse Association Register has evolved into a proven document and contains the key principles sought for the Alpaca Registry."

Eric Hoffman converted the language of the Horse Registry into the Alpaca Registry. The new registry document was copyrighted by the Alpaca Owners and Breeders Association, Inc.

While I was researching this article, I decided to contact the Morgan Registry to determine whether there were any historical documents that would shed light on the relationship between the two registries. I talked with the current registrar who had recently found the 1988 copy of the horse registry and he sent me those rules. By laying the 1988, Alpaca Registry and the Morgan Horse Registry documents down side by side the similarities are instantly obvious. They are almost identical in their substance, layout, order of sections, rules and regulations. The primary difference in the two documents, other than the use of the word alpaca in place of Morgan horse, is the fact that the horse registry had a few more rules. But the rules in the original Alpaca Registry are essentially the same as those found in the 1988, Morgan Horse Registry.

THE REGISTRY'S "OPEN" PERIOD

After the AOBA members voted to ratify the new document the Registry was "open" for a period of 90 days, until March 30, 1989. During that time the original members of the Alpaca Registry Screening Committee (ARSC), Susan Stackhouse, Eric Hoffman, and myself, who were appointed by the AOBA Board of Directors, contacted every known owner of alpacas. Eric persuaded his employers, Tom Hunt and Jurgen Schulz, to register their entire herd which was the largest in the country, and I persuaded Phil Mizrahie, the owner of the second largest herd, to register all of his alpacas. Between the three of us, we caused over 95% (1212) of all the alpacas in the United States to be blood typed and registered, thereafter the Registry was "closed".

The Alpaca Registry was accepted, in its entirety, for administration by International Lama Registry (ILR) President Terry Price and the ILR Board. From the beginning, the Alpaca Registry was significantly different from the Llama Registry. The primary differences were: 1) the mandatory identification of a cria's sire and dam by a scientifically verifiable blood typing requirement and; 2) after a short initial open period, the Alpaca Registry was closed. Terry Price had this to say about the Registry closure in Llama Life, 1988, No. 7, page 10:

"The alpaca community has the political coherence to set an example which could be duplicated in the llama community if the ILR adopted a policy to close the registry to additional 'llama' bloodlines…"

"Closure of the alpaca registry will mean that only the offspring of a sire and a dam already registered as an alpaca will be designated as an alpaca on its certificate… The only exception would be new alpacas registered only if the animal in question is accepted by the alpaca screening committee...,"

The concept of verifying parents by blood typing, copied from the Morgan Horse Registry, made the Alpaca Registry highly credible. Most breed registries relied on the owners' representations as to the pedigree of the animal being registered. The closure that Price talks about is not the same as the total closure that we know in 2004 but it gave the new registry a franchise. Any screened alpaca rejected by the ARSC could not be registered, period. If the alpaca was rejected on a split vote of the committee, the owner could re-apply for registration after two years.

EARLY PROBLEMS WITH THE ILR

Once the Registry was implemented, it ran smoothly until late 1989. The first problem arose when the ARSC denied the registration of two animals, owned by a man named Robert Fulcher, which had previously been registered as llamas. The ILR Board of Directors decided to overrule the ARSC decision and allow registration of the llamas as alpacas. This decision by the ILR was a complete contradiction of the Alpaca Registry rules.

The trouble over the registration of the Fulcher animals was being fostered by a man named Jack Thomas who served as Registrar to the ILR. He was against the concept of an independent Alpaca Registry from the beginning and he encouraged Fulcher to register his llamas as alpacas. His attitude about the Registry was reflected in his October 11, 1989, memo to the ILR and ARSC. It said, in part:

"As I understand it, the ILR Board has agreed to (without full and formal discussion and over my protests) the AOBA document that creates an Alpaca Registry. Moreover, no one has bothered to secure my agreement to implement this document.

In a phone conference last night with ARSC members, I did my best to describe my fears about the Alpaca Registry. I felt very much alone, unsupported, and out of place…."

The Alpaca Registry and eventually the ILR would continue to have trouble with Jack, a cantankerous man who often found it hard to hear the other side of the story.

When the Fulcher animals became an issue, the ILR board decided, at the urging of Thomas, that the independent nature of the Alpaca Registry was not compatible with their concept of running and controlling a registry. AOBA, who at that time controlled the Alpaca Registry, took serious exception to the ILR's attempt to make decisions affecting alpacas. The position of the respective parties is best reflected by the following letter addressed to AOBA by the president of the ILR:

Michael Safley
AOBA President and ARSC Member
Northwest Alpacas

Dear Mike:

The ILR-BOD had a teleconference call last night pertaining to the draft of the document. In light of the single response received from Susan, which had definite overtones of independence from ILR, and no response from either you or Eric Hoffman, we feel that negotiations have reached an impasse.

According to the agreement signed in Rochester on December 2, 1989, we are formally notifying ARSC/AOBA that in return for payment of the AOBA debt to ILR ($4915 as of May 1, 1990) we will turn over the data from the Alpaca Sub-Registry.

It saddens me greatly, after all our efforts to see this happen. A registry cannot be dictated to or run by any outside group or association. It appears that AOBA wants to do just that.

Cordially,
Kay Patterson, ILR President

A divorce of the Alpaca Registry from the Lama Registry was avoided only after an intervention by Terry Price. Price had been instrumental in persuading the alpaca community to house their Registry with the ILR in the first place. The issue of who controlled the Registry was resolved by compromise. The Alpaca Registry Screening Committee (ARSC) was created as an elected committee of the ILR. They replaced AOBA in the role of policymaker for the Alpaca Registry. AOBA would no longer have a formal role in making registration policy.

THE ALPACA REGISTRY SCREENING COMMITTEE IS BORN

ARSC was invested with the exclusive authority to make Alpaca Registry policy. The committee was composed of three members who were elected by owners of alpacas registered by the ILR. The ILR Board of Directors retained the right to veto any change proposed by ARSC, which affected ILR registration policy, but changes to the Alpaca Registry rules and regulations could only be initiated by ARSC.

The dealings to reach this agreement with the ILR were tense and hard fought. Eric Hoffman's Editor's Notes and Letters to the Editor section of the Alpaca Registry Journal, Volume II, Number 1, recalls the two most important principles, which were established during the negotiations.

"During negotiations, ARSC insisted that ARSC would continue as the Alpaca Registry Screening Committee with the ILR, with elected posts consisting of three members who would be responsible for matters pertinent to the alpaca registry…,

"In addition to separation and a system of electing officers…, the 1989 negotiations with the ILR produced an essential feature that would ensure ARSC's and the Alpaca Registry's independence within (and eventually from) the ILR. During the negotiations, Mike Safley insisted that ARSC be granted an exclusive right to levy a surcharge, which both parties agreed to in writing. ARSC's power of the purse was therefore established long ago."

AOBA members agreed to the negotiated changes in late 1990, and ARSC was fully empowered. The two llamas, which were the original cause of the dispute, were never registered as alpacas.

The "power of the purse" that Hoffman mentioned allowed the ARI, in later years, to levy screening fees and collect millions of dollars for the exclusive benefit of the alpaca industry. These screening fees eventually became the subject of a lawsuit by Jack Thomas against the ILR, and the ARI.

In retrospect, AOBA members may have been wiser to accept Kay Pattersons' offer to sell the Registry data back to AOBA. This would have avoided a more expensive buyout later, avoided ongoing skirmishes with the ILR and left the industry's breed association and Registry unified. But the reality was that we did not have the necessary industry resources to operate the Alpaca Registry in 1990.

WHO CONTROLS THE ALPACA REGISTRY?

The Alpaca Registry functioned smoothly until a second disagreement arose in early 1992, again it was, who controls the Alpaca Registry? Once more, the ILR Board of Directors unilaterally proposed rule changes, which directly contradicted the 1990 agreement. The essence of the dispute is contained in excerpts from a letter that was sent to Jack Thomas, by the ARSC committee.

Dear Jack:

It has become increasingly clear to ARSC that the ILR Board of Directors, perception of rules for running the Alpaca Sub-registry and the ARSC perception of running the same registry are not one in the same. Due to a number of recent events it is clear to ARSC that changes are needed and a new understanding must be forged so that the essential guarantees are maintained, if the Alpaca Sub-registry is going to enjoy continued support from the alpaca community..,

The letter, which totaled seven pages, asked the ILR to classify ARSC as a separate entity, which would have greater flexibility in rulemaking. It concluded with an urgent request for improved communication.

The outcome of this dispute was a retreat by both parties. "The letter was basically ignored," said ARSC member Anthony Stachowski, "We continued to screen alpacas according to our rules and they left us alone." There were no ILR rule changes made directly affecting alpacas. "It is clear that the alpaca owners can't have rules adopted by the ILR Board of Directors pertaining only to alpacas," said Jack Thomas, the ILR Registrar.

Once more, the operation of the Registry settled down and began to run smoothly. But the resumption of imports into the United States, of both llamas and alpacas, would soon begin to stir the pot.

THE ARI SCREENING PROGRAM

The ARI screening program began when the original "open period" for the registration of alpacas closed in March of 1989. The program was ultimately responsible for stopping a large volume of poor quality, defective alpacas from being admitted into the Alpaca Registry. It was a perfect solution, to the problem of which alpacas became the foundation animals of the North American herd. But the program was born of considerable controversy.

In the beginning, alpacas were simply screened to determine whether they were either a llama or an alpaca. Llamas were denied entry into the registry. Alpacas, no matter what their quality, were admitted to the registry. This was the case until 1995. The ARSC Committee, composed of Margaret Brewster, Diane Longo and Susan Stackhouse explained the existing (1995) screening program in a March 1995, communication to the membership.

"Since its inception, ARSC has continuously been making the screening requirements for alpacas more exacting in attempt to rule out entry of individuals with questionable alpaca ancestry and phenotypic defects into the registry. At present, the veterinary checklist for negative traits is being expanded and more detailed, and ARSC will not accept applications with incomplete or questionable histories.

To date ARSC has not denied registration solely on the basis of poor quality. However, individual members have at times really wished for reasons to deny certain poor individuals entry into the registry.

It can be argued that the entry of poor and mediocre individuals into the registry is not beneficial to" (a) the gene pool represented by the total of registered individuals, (b) the owners of registered alpacas as a whole or (c) the image of the registry."

IMPORTS POSED A NEW PROBLEM

In January of 1995, the USDA once again declared Chile, Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) free and issued a streamlined import protocol, which allowed importers to avoid high security, long, quarantine periods. There had been two imports of alpacas from Peru in 1993 and 1994. Both of these imports went through the high security Harry S. Truman Animal Import Center (HSTAIC). The new rule for Chile threatened the stability of the alpaca market and raised alarms about the threat of disease being introduced into the domestic herd.

The ILR and the ARSC Committee were also concerned that they would be unable to physically process a large number of imports. At the time, the screening fee was $15.00 per animal and the alpacas were not screened until they arrived in the United States.

The alpaca market was thrown into turmoil. There was no consensus on how to deal with imports. ARSC, without consulting with the alpaca community, decided to adopt a listing program similar to the ILR program for llamas. The ILR had never closed their registry and did not require imported llamas to be screened. They were "listed" without regard to quality.

A MOVE TO ADOPT LISTING

The ARSC Committee submitted a request to the ILR Board of Directors to approve listing. On December 17, 1994, Linda Walker, an alpaca breeder who was on the ILR Board of Directors at the time, and an advocate of listing, seconded a motion to have the ILR adopt listing for alpacas. The ILR Board of Directors unanimously adopted the proposed rules. The fat was in the fire and the alpaca industry mobilized against the initiative.

I decided to run for a seat on ARSC in the 1995 election and I helped form what was called the "Ad-Hoc Committee" on imports. The AOBA Board of Directors reacted by asking the ILR to place a moratorium on the listing or screening of any alpacas until such time as a consensus could be reached about how to deal with imported alpaca. A 120-day moratorium on implementing the new rules was approved by the ILR Board of Directors. Emotions ran high.

LISTING VERSUS SCREENING

The argument over listing versus full registration was largely one of form over substance. The substance of the debate was quality. If listing were adopted, an alpaca could be listed by merely paying $40, sending in pictures, and establishing proper identification. No alpaca would be rejected for listing. On the other hand, any animal failing the screening process would be denied registration and stay in the country of origin. Screening for quality was the meat of the matter. By only admitting superior alpacas to the registry, the registration certificate became a statement of quality.

DENVER IMPORT SYMPOSIUM

The Ad-Hoc Committee organized a meeting in Denver, Colorado. Terri Phipps and her husband, David Schieferstein, a lawyer who would later become Council to the Alpaca Registry Inc. (ARI), coordinated the event and on March 18-19, 1995, forty people attended. They included importers, members of the AOBA Board of Directors, and breeders large and small. No ARSC members were present.

At the symposium, myself, Jerry Forstner, and many others in attendance advocated for higher screening standards, increased screening fees and more stringent health requirements. The group developed a consensus statement on imports and formed a new committee. AOBA agreed to mail the consensus statement to the entire membership. The substance of the agreements reached in Denver included the following:

"Purpose of the Registry: Given changes in the industry, the Registry needs to expand its focus, maintaining its current purpose of registration of the domestic herd, but also instituting guidelines to protect the health and quality of the national herd. Towards that end, registration should not be extended to imported animals that will not substantially improve the breed standards currently existing in the United States…,

Organization of the Registry: In order to ensure the timely implementation of screening criteria, the question arose about the location and organization of the Registry. The two options preferred by the participants were either to see ARSC implement significant structural changes in the Registry or to have the Registry transferred to an independent organization…,

None of the participants favored the utilization of a separate class of "listed" animals, such as is currently used in the Llama Registry."

ARSC took the work of the breeders at the import symposium seriously and responded with a letter to the Alpaca Registry members that included the following:

"To bring to resolution the debate and questions about how to best screen unregistered (usually imported) alpacas, the Alpaca Registry Screening Committee (ARSC) has appointed a committee that will study the current screening processes and recommend changes…,

ARSC's newly formed committee is officially named the 1995 ARSC Advisory Committee (AAC). David Schieferstein, Maggie Krieger, Eric Hoffman, Mike Safley, Jerry Forstner, and Jim Schmidt were appointed and have agreed to serve for 1995. Eric Hoffman and David Schieferstein were appointed co-chairs…,"

THE NEW SCREENING RULES ARE ADOPTED

The AAC took its job seriously. We worked long and hard to come up with a report to the industry and ARSC. In the end the committee recommended that imports be screened in the country of origin and not listed. We also recommended that the importer be required to pay a $500 per animal screening fee. The screening criterion was radically revised. Dr. Murray Fowler, Dr. Brad Smith and Eric Hoffman created the physical defects portion of the requirements and I worked with Angus McColl to create the fiber and phenotype portion of the screening forms. Every animal had to pass a physical defects exam and, once they were cleared by the veterinarians, they needed to score a minimum of 80 points on the phenotype-screening scorecard. Fiber accounted for 60% of the score and conformation and type accounted for the other 40%.

The new screening rules that were passed became a model for registries around the world. ARSC collected millions of dollars in screening fees, which were used for marketing and research. The health and quality of the present herd in the United States is considered by many to be the best in the world. (I ask my friends in all the alpaca producing countries to forgive my national pride.) This is in no small way is part of the result of the screening rules that were born of the 1995, screening and listing debate.

THE ALPACA REGISTRY INC. - MONEY AND INDEPENDENCE

Once the issue of how imported alpacas would be registered and screened was settled and Alpaca Registry Screening Committee (ARSC) adopted the recommendation of the Alpaca Advisory Committee (AAC); the money began rolling into the committee's coffers. The heretofore obscure ARSC committee was suddenly on everyone's radar screen. They had money, from the $500 per animal screening fee, and lots of it. I was elected to ARSC in June of 1995, when there was $10,000 in the bank. By the end of the year, we collected $250,000 in screening fees with more on the way. At the June 16, 1995, ARSC meeting the board moved to incorporate the Alpaca Registry; enter into an employment agreement with Dar Wassnik to establish a registry office in Kalispell, Montana; issue the AAC report; and to ask the ILR to lift the screening moratorium. At the July 13, 1995, meeting the Board of Directors further moved to publish a newsletter edited by Eric Hoffman; to instruct David Schieferstein, the ARSC's new attorney, to write a letter to the ILR regarding the Alpaca Registry's changing relationship with the ILR; and to poll the members about renaming the registry.

The Registry published the new screening rules and a screening manual. Eric Hoffman began training screeners who would be paid to travel to South America and screen the imports. Eric did a great job, not only training additional screeners but also, making trip after trip to South America to screen the rising volume of imports.

JACK THOMAS LAWSUIT

The influx of money into the Registry benefited many alpaca related projects. It helped shape the AOBA affiliate program, marketing, and it funded major alpaca research but it also created a problem. Jack Thomas, who was already in the midst of a lawsuit with the ILR over his compensation, decided he was entitled to 72% of the alpaca screening fees that were flowing into the ARI bank account. His lawsuit was headlined in the autumn 1995; issue number 35, of Llama Life Magazine.

Lawsuit Grows to $369,155

Registrar Now Claims Additional
$190,000 Due to ILR's Allowing
Alpaca Registry Inc. to Collect
$500 per Head Import Surcharge

Terry Price was reporting (he owned Llama Life at the time) and despite his previous support for the alpaca industry and his personal knowledge of the registry agreements with the ILR, he had this to say, in Llama Life, on behalf of his old friend, Thomas:

Registrar's Claims

Rochester, Minnesota

… "What does Thomas claim he is owed by ILR?
As his share of the "import surcharge," he claims $190,000…,

Thomas also claims $35,640 for lost income arising from the ILR board's moratorium on screening alpacas. Essentially Thomas claims the ILR board, by placing a moratorium, simply delayed the receipt of income beyond the date of his contract. Thomas claims this moratorium breaches the board's duty not to prevent Thomas from receiving the full benefit of his contract.

Thomas also claims $8,782 for his costs of modifying his computer programs to implement new screening rules adopted without his consent by the ILR board.

Adding it up, Thomas now claims $369,155. But it might not end there.

Alpaca importers five deep are lined up to bring alpacas into the U.S. this year…,

If The Alpaca Registry (TAR) is successful in collecting fees from these groups, Thomas will logically be able to increase his claims by another $585,000. And if the ILR backtracks now from collection of these import surcharges, Thomas may claim it did so simply to prevent him from realizing the full benefit of his contract, so he is still owed the money that could have been collected.

As the suit progressed, Price, who would later become Council to the ARI Board of Directors majority (why, I could never fathom) opposed to closing the Registry became a witness on behalf of Thomas and his lawsuit. He filed an affidavit, in the court proceeding, supporting Thomas's claim, which contained the following representations:

24. While I was President, the relationship between the ARSC and the ILR board functioned well because the board between 1987 and 1989 was willing to delegate decision making to ARSC, and not second-guess or meddle with matters relating strictly to alpaca registration. However, this willingness to delegate and "not meddle" was a modus vivendi, not a legal requirement, for all committees of ILR always remained subject to the ultimate control of the board, by virtue of §7.1 of the ILR bylaws…,

28. Based on all the foregoing, I can unequivocally state that there was never any agreement of ILR policy that made ARSC an entity independent of the ILR. It has at all times been a committee of the ILR. Any rules or surcharges imposed by ARSC as a condition precedent to registration of an alpaca with ILR were done pursuant to the ultimate authority of the ILR board to control all aspects of ILR business and the issuance of registration certificates for camelids…,

37. As I understand the dispute in arbitration, one determination that must be made is whether the surcharges upon registration of alpacas imported from South America are "gross revenue" of the registry to which Thomas is entitled to a 72% share by the terms of his four-year contract with ILR, in effect from 1992-1995 inclusive.

38. At all times since expiration of his first "piece work" contract in 1987, it is my understanding that Thomas has been entitled to receive a percentage of all registry income regardless of the source or derivation of the income. I see no reason why an exception would exist for surcharges upon registration of alpacas imported from South America, especially since those fees are imposed as a condition precedent to the issuance by ILR of a registration certificate showing those animals are part of the alpaca subregistry of ILR…,"

In June of 1996, David Schieferstein and I traveled to Rochester, Minnesota to testify on behalf of the Alpaca Registry and the ILR in the Thomas matter. The arbitration hearing was held at the Holiday Inn. David and I testified about the agreement reached with the ILR to allow the Alpaca Registry to assess surcharges and keep the money. I pointed out that Thomas was present when we reached our agreement and had acknowledged much to his disappointment, that we had the right to levy the screening fees and keep the money.

The arbitrators found in the Alpaca Registry's favor. Thomas was not entitled to a dime of the screening fees. They did find in his favor on some of his claims against the ILR. He was awarded $51,457.00. He was seeking a total of $436,624, and although the award was small, it gave the cash strapped ILR heartburn, and the Alpaca Registry an opportunity to finally gain their independence.

ARI OBTAINS INDEPENDENCE

As a result of the Thomas judgment and moving their offices to Kalispell, Montana, the ILR was strapped for cash. The ARI, on the other hand, was flush with money from the screening fees. After a year of wrangling with the ILR president, Nancy Calhoun, about the terms of our independence I was finally able to gain an agreement and the price of ARI's freedom from the ILR: $100,000. The fact that the ARI had to pay for its own database, which was the product of the ARI members' payment of registry fees gives one the flavor of the lopsided way that ILR viewed ARI.

David Schieferstein published this account of the agreement in the Winter/Spring issue of The Alpaca Registry Journal under the headline:

Congratulations! A Late-Breaking Announcement

As this issue of the Alpaca Registry Journal was going to press, more than a year of intense and difficult negotiations with the International Lama Registry (ILR) concluded with the signing of agreements that will prove to be extremely beneficial to our industry. While these agreements can be discussed in much greater depth in a later publication, they will provide the following significant improvements:

• As of December 11, 1996, the ILR's Alpaca Division is now the Alpaca Registry, a self-sufficient registry completely controlled by the alpaca industry through its democratically elected ARI board. The entire alpaca database and the blood typing information at UC Davis belong to us.
• As of January 1, 1997, ARI will collect all registration fees on alpacas, the net proceeds of which will go to benefit the alpaca industry exclusively. In the past, the ILR has collected 100 percent of these fees and spent any net proceeds on the lama community.
• For now, the Alpaca Registry will continue to be administered by the ILR, as ARI's independent contractor, and by the ILR's registrar, Jan Wassnik, who has proven to be a capable administrator. However, the agreements allow ARI to change administrators at any time, and the ILR has promised that it will not set up or support a competing registry.

Allow me to congratulate everyone who has worked so hard to bring this historic event to pass, and to thank everyone in the industry who has expressed support for these efforts."

1998: THE REGISTRY IS CLOSED

1998 was a tumultuous year in the alpaca industry. The importers had continued to assemble large-scale imports from South America and many in the alpaca community believed that the marketplace would be overcome by a continuation of the status quo: screen and register. The ARI Board of Directors had made clear in previous communication with the membership that they had no interest in closing the registry. I decided to author an initiative petition to close the registry.

The ARI board majority: Eric Hoffman, Tilly Dorsey, and Robbie Guidry reacted to the closure petition with a fierce defense of the status quo: screen and register. The battle was joined. Once the petition accrued enough ballots to be put to a vote, the board majority changed their tactics from opposing closure to proposing an alternate plan of limiting annual imports to 300 animals. This idea was hatched by the importers and embraced by Hoffman, Dorsey and Guidry, and it became known as the ARI Board Majority Alternative to Closure. The scheme was proposed late in the debate and the board majority had legal difficulties getting it properly put on the ballot. It was ultimately put forward as a nonbinding poll question for membership vote. The membership voted overwhelmingly against the scheme cooked up by Hoffman and the importers and for closing the registry.

THE ARI/ILR RELATIONSHIP POST CLOSURE

As 1998 came to a close the landscape of the alpaca community changed, the ARI no longer had huge revenues from screening fees and AOBA was in charge of most of the major industry initiatives. The leaders of AOBA believed that it might be in the best interest of the alpaca industry to consider merging the registry with the breed association. They decided to empower a long range planning committee to study the idea. The ARI, led by Eric Hoffman, was opposed to merger.

The possibility of merging the two associations motivated Gordon Anderson, who was AOBA President at the time, to send a letter to Eric Hoffman, who was ARI President. The January 15, 1999 letter contained the following request:

"I have been made aware by copy of correspondence from Greg Mecklem dated January 8, 1999, that ARI is considering a long-term contract with the ILR for processing registrations. I would like to urge ARI not to enter into any long term commitments that could potentially restrict the industry from innovative changes in the immediate future. The industry is undergoing dynamic changes as you know and we need the widest flexibility for future action rather than being tied to past practices. Your observation expressed in your President's Message in the November 1998 ARI Newsletter is right on target: "But by and large the community and the board are moving on to a whole new set of circumstances requiring new thinking, new personalities, and open-mindedness."

The request was reasonable and prudent under the circumstances but Hoffman was adamantly opposed to merger and, effective February 1, 1999, he extended the ARI contract with the ILR. Mary Reed, who succeeded Hoffman as President of the ARI, and also opposed to merger, signed another extension of the contract less than a year later that obligated the Registry to the ILR until December 31, 2003. The contract Reed signed also included a punitive penalty amounting to 10% of the previous years total fees in the event that the ARI chose to terminate the contract. The net result of the contract extensions was to marry the ARI to the same ILR who they had spent ten years fighting for their independence.

The contracts were a sweetheart deal for the ILR. The ARI retained a consultant (Schrull) to advice them whether they were over paying the ILR for their services. The consultant concluded that they were indeed over paying and the fees were reduced from 70% of the gross revenue to a transaction-based schedule. In a June 8, 2000, memo to the ARI board members, Jan Wassink, the ILR Registrar, had this to say about Schrull's report:

"I do, however, want to point out that while Mr. Schrull points out that current ILR pricing is well above industry standards, the level of service the ARI is receiving is also well above industry standards. Consequently, a pricing/service package that results in a lower cost to the ARI, will have a corresponding lower level of service...,"

At the end of the contract period, the final divorce of the ARI and ILR would prove to be painful and revealing. The ARI database that was turned over to the new management company contained gaps, redundant data, duplicate records and incorrect DNA records for individual animals. The political rhetoric from the ILR registrar attempted to paint the ARI as the bad guys and both sides retained legal counsel.

The truth is that the ARI and the ILR did not get along from the very beginning and it was a mistake to continue the relationship with them once we gained our independence. Moreover, now that the alpaca community is finally free of their grasp it would be a monumental mistake, to ever, for any reason, associate with them again.

THE ARI TODAY

The ARI has grown from one person's passion to see alpacas registered with a scientifically verifiable identification system to a huge genealogical database that tracks ownership and pedigrees for more than 50,000 alpacas. The ARI Board of Directors is elected by alpaca owners and is no longer beholden to another breed's registrar or Board of Directors. The road to independence, both political and financial was long and hard fought but over the years, the ARI membership has prevailed for the principal that - A breed registry exists to create value for their members.

Reproduced with permission from:

Alpaca Breeding Farm: Northwest Alpacas : raising suri and huacaya alpacas for sale, alpaca investment, and alpaca business plans for alpaca breeders and owners worldwide. Find more useful information at the Alpaca Library.

Copyright © 2003-2005 Northwest Alpacas