The ILR Speaks

Llama Life II - copyright 1999


In the past Llama Life II has been critical of the International Llama Registry for its perceived reluctance to "be open" about its internal views and decisions. We were, therefore, delighted when the board readily agreed to answer several direct questions and the result was a candid view of where each member stands on a number of issues. We believe this provides valuable insight for concerned breeders and owners.
It should be noted that in some instances individual replies were so similar, in the interests of length, not all board members' answers are listed. The registrar replied only to questions that involved data - its collection, storage and dissemination.
With regard to the questions regarding screening and importation surcharge fees, it should be further noted that Sally Taylor is currently the only board member who also is an importer.

The board members:

Barbara Carlomagno, president
 Jack Moore, vice president
Kathi McKinney, treasurer
 Sally Rucker, secretary
Sally Taylor
Jan Wassink, registrar


Question 1 - How does the ILR view its role in the industry?
Carlomagno : The ILR is a genealogical database of llama pedigree. The Registry's focus should always be on the expansion and accuracy of llama pedigree. It should be a conservative body, non-reactionary, and, for stability, as non-political as possible, as intended by the founders. We can understand the appeal of using the Registry as a strong arm to raise moneys for the entire industry. However, although we are a livestock registry, we first of all represent three different species (or sub-species) of the genus Lama, not just a single breed. All the potential future breeds of lamas rest in our hands at present. We are more like the Minor Breeds Registry, in which it is vitally important for genetic reasons to get as many animals as possible registered.
The independence of the Registry is crucial for its survival. The founders were adamant on this point and it is just as relevant today as it was in 1985. The Registry is legally independent of all other lama associations so that no single association could gain control over it and use the Registry for political advantage over the others. If the Registry were not independent, politics would rule and the integrity of the Registry would be compromised.
Another consideration is that individuals should have a free choice not to support the programs of other organizations. Should the Registry force them to pay for those programs? Isn't it up to the organizations to convince their own membership of the worthiness of a cause and prove, by good stewardship of donated monies, that they are worth supporting? No other governance plan would fairly represent the Registry's members as many do not belong to any other lama association.
That raising fees will result in fewer registrations is apparent by the fact that 90% of our current registrations are at the lowest cost. It is not a simple matter of adding another $20 or whatever to the registration fee. The costs of both administering that fee and, even more expensive, explaining the additional fee to all those who ask or complain, must be factored in. What cannot be factored in is the loss of revenue and registrations from those who would stop registering because they object to this type of increase, with no increase in service. The Registry has a list of its own projects it would like to pursue if it had the money.
As various political factions raise their hands, just ask yourself "What does this faction gain by this?" Is it something that will actually be helpful to you or to the lama breeding community or will it just benefit some special interests? The Registry is the largest lama organization in the world, far larger than any other association. Any association or person(s) that wishes to take control of the Registry is very likely wishing to have that power. Unlike political associations, on the other hand, the Registry is not interested in gaining more members to make more money from them. Its major interest is registering as many llamas as it can, as accurately as it can, and at the lowest cost it can. Diluting or weakening the Registry now, as it is still developing, can have profoundly negative effects on the future of llama breeding in this country.
Moore: First and foremost, the International Lama Registry maintains current and accurate records of pedigree. It services its members with prompt and accurate responses to expressed requests. The Registry utilizes state of the art practices to keep its data available to constantly changing resources. The transition to DNA is an example. By remaining apolitical and focusing on its responsibility, it has become the stabilizing entity of the lama world. The Registry is here to stay. By regularly involving the voice of its membership, it provides services reflecting expressed desires, the Directory is an example. It is evolving as a conduit to information needed by members, a role historically filled by the ILA.
McKinney: The primary function of the ILR is complete and accurate record keeping for the industry. It is also the main collection point for all other information pertinent to the history of our animals. The more information we can collect, the more help we can be to our members.
Rucker : The ILR's main function is to keep accurate and complete genealogical records It is also a repository of information about most llama owners; their addresses, the number of animals, the amount of activity at their ranch and other important demographic information which is available for statistical research.
Taylor : I think the ILR's legitimate role is limited to recording accurate genealogy and providing fast and efficient service to registrants. The stated purpose of the ILR that applies to fostering research really relates only to research based on statistical and other data collected by ILR in the process of providing the basic genealogy function of a registry. ILR's current corporate legal status limits our involvement in marketing or political activities.

Question 2: How does the board feel about merger with the ILA? What would be good? What would be bad?


Moore : How can the ILR consider merging with an organization that has mismanaged itself into a point of apparently no return? At this time, the Registry would be doing its members a disservice should it attempt to meld with the ILA. Rather, should ILA cease to exist, those services formerly provided by ILA that seem essential to the industry could be incorporated into ILR's sphere of responsibility. If the ILA disappears, it would be incumbent upon ILR to poll its membership immediately and reassess whether the ILR assume a more global role within the industry or stand pat. The fact that ILA has contributed absolutely nothing to this llama owner for more than 16 months makes me question the need for the concept of ILA as we know it.
McKinney: Whether the ILR joins with the ILA or whether it does not is not nearly as important in my mind as the process we use to make that decision. It is not in the best interest of the lama community to be divided again by another battle over merger which I believe would be inevitable because of the strong feelings on both sides of this issue. Instead of merger, I would suggest continuing along the road of cooperation which we have already started. The major advantages of merger - sharing office space and personnel and developing a single vision for the industry - can be realized by cooperation, without going through an emotional merger process.
Rucker : The expressed purpose of the ILR in the bylaws does not include government relations, national promotion, research, education, youth programs, political activities or many of the other functions performed by a national organization like an ILA or LANA. We would have to amend the bylaws in order to legally assume responsibility for those functions. We do an excellent job of maintaining genealogical records and we have achieved financial stability as well as efficiency and continuity in the Registry office. Our costs to members have stabilized at an affordable level and a merger would force costs to go up. With the current weakness of llama prices and sales, rising costs would not be palatable to people who register their llamas. The Registry would be adversely affected by the polarization and politics of the ILA and those who have chosen not to join it. It might be more practical for ILA to merge with an organization with a similar purpose, such as LANA. The Registry represents all llama owners who register their llamas. ILA represents a fraction of these people. We cannot force our members to join an organization which they have actively chosen not to join. We are willing, on the other hand, to cooperate wherever it is practical to do so.
Taylor : The window of opportunity for merger between ILR and ILA has closed. ILA is so debilitated by its lack of funding and political support that the sad reality is there is no point in trying to resurrect it. I have always supported unification between the registry and the national association of llama breeders and owners, but the names and the current legal structures of these two carry so much negative political baggage that I would support a dissolution of both as part of the process of creating a new entity that could serve both purposes effectively.
Carlomagno : The purpose of the ILR is to register llamas. Several years ago, as many of you may well remember, the ILA wanted to take over the Registry. At that time the ILA knew they were in financial difficulty and the future of the ILA was in jeopardy. The Registry resisted a takeover and was successful. Recent members of the board of directors have worked hard to make sure that the Registry remains uninfluenced by political and marketing issues involving llamas and have tried to concentrate on what can be done to keep the various llama species purebred and genetically healthy. That is the charge of the Registry and we are in violation of that charge if we allow ourselves to be blown about by political winds of change.
The ILA would have liked a Breed Registry where everyone that registers a llama must belong, in order to register their llamas. Their financial funding, decline in membership, and spending were the cause of their problems. In order to have a Breed-Registry your basic $10 registration fee would no longer exist. All fees would be increased and not just by a few dollars, as some would like to believe. In order to fund government relations, research, national promotion, education, youth programs and the political activities of the ILA your basic registration fee would need to more than double. You would have to pay a membership fee, which the Registry has never charged in addition to those higher registration fees.
The Registry would become a political entity in which democracy would change to a monopoly. That means democracy would no longer exist and the ILR would become a high end exclusive club with no one to answer to. The financial stability this board has worked so hard to secure for the future of the Registry would be in great danger of being squandered.
Some people feel the ILA has spent their money unwisely and did not look to the future to financially protect their programs. Many of the functions already relinquished by the ILA have been picked up by local groups and affiliates. Ask yourself this, "What does the ILA have that is worth saving?" What have they communicated to you as a Registry member. Llama owners like to participate locally rather than nationally. Their local groups function for them and participation is high.
The Registry went through a very difficult transition when we moved to Kalispell. The board of directors has been and continues to be very concerned about long range planning. Any decision to merge with another group would be made by our members, not the board. The members would be informed with the pros and cons over a period of time, followed by a comment period, a survey and then a vote. If the board of directors did not follow a procedure similar to this, we would be denying the very basis of the Registry and the rights of its membership.
We have been successful in keeping the Registry thriving by having the very best registrar, Jan Wassink, a competent and polite staff, enforcing the rules and regulations equally and fairly for all members without prejudice, keeping fees low, reducing other fees and introducing new technology to keep our database accurate and secure for the future. Most importantly we owe our continued survival to our membership who have consistently registered their llamas with us because they believe in the Registry. See ILReport Summer 1993

Question 3: Will Bob Wynia's plan, as outlined in LLII No. 49, work? Why or why not?


McKinney : Bob's plan assumes merger as the only answer. His plan would work better as a cooperative effort. I believe we need to have only one national association to go forward with any plan.
Taylor : I think Bob Wynia is a thoughtful and fair-minded person. His plan is more practical than any presented so far. His suggestion of getting representatives together for discussion merits careful consideration and further investigation. We should be able to get together to talk.
Carlomagno : Bob Wynia's plan would not work in my opinion because you cannot force anyone to belong to something they do not want to belong to. The membership would have to vote on this and $30,000 a year is not going to pay for phone, postage and printing, let alone, government relations, research and national promotion. (See answer to question 2.)

Question 4: Many have pointed to the cattle, horse and dog industries' single "breed association" role. Does this Registry feel this is a good or bad idea and why?


Rucker: The cattle, horse and dog breed associations represent only a small portion of the animals in each breed. They are exclusive rather than inclusive. The ILR has sought to be inclusive of any animals who have verifiable pedigrees or who pass screening to be registered. We want all of these animals to be registered and represented in our organization because it leads to more accurate demographic and genealogical information if we include as many animals as possible. The prohibitive costs associated with many breed associations excludes all but the wealthy from membership and active participation. The positive side of a breed association is that it avoids duplication of effort and coordination of office functions. The ILR has tried to do this with the printing of the Directory and by contracting with ARI and ILA for them to use our office space and staff.
Taylor : Yes. This model has been proven to work. Ours doesn't. The llama community desperately needs a national organization to coordinate government issues and research.
Carlomagno : My opinion. In those associations most pets and neutered or spayed animals are normally not registered. Cattle for slaughter are not registered. Pleasure horses are not registered. Sheep for market are not registered. Have I made my point? The registry database includes registered pet llamas and geldings. In making the ILR more like a breed registry, you would lose compliance of the registration of llamas. The llamas that are pets and geldings would never be registered as they are now because the cost would become prohibitive.
Moore : From the aspect of avoidance of duplication of effort, I favor the "single breed association" point of view. The stumbling block standing between the present multiple organization approach (GALA, LANA, ALSA, WVLA and SSLA, for example) and the concept of a single breed entity is the expressed and intense desire of too many in leadership roles to hold on to their respective "kingdoms." For 14 months, back in '96 and '97, I chaired The Lama Steering Committee. Its purpose was to develop a simple universal source of reliable funding for medical needs and governmental issues affecting the llama. This concept of "working together" to satisfy a common need was presented by The Llama Steering Committee at the well-attended 1997 Llama Assembly in Colorado Springs. For reasons known only to itself, ILA chose to assail the concept in the weeks preceding the meeting, as well as at the Assembly itself, both verbally and in extensive written form. At that time, ILA was the main reason the TLSC model based on the concept of "working together" was rejected. At this time, I fail to see any change in ILA's commitment. Therefore, I feel effort expended in pursuit of the "single breed association" concept is time wasted.
McKinney: I believe there are advantages to the "single breed association." However, I believe the first step in that process does not necessarily involve the Registry. Instead, it should be a merging of some of the breed associations - beginning with the ILA and LANA.

Question 5: How does the Registry feel about having ALSA Recognition of Merit and other awards on the registration certificates?


Taylor: This would only be appropriate and relevant if ALSA dissolved and participated in a comprehensive metamorphosis of the registry and association. Right now ALSA is a separate political entity with separate goals and directions from both the registry and the association. As such it should not be formally promoted by ILR.
Carlomagno : I feel that if all llama owners belonged to ALSA there wouldn't be a question of not doing it. Until the Registry has time to research this further and formulate a plan to incorporate additional information, I don't think it is a good idea to put these titles on the registration certificates.
Moore: Initially I thought it was a good idea. My biggest concern lies with dealing with other groups who have their own ways to "recognize" superior accomplishments.
McKinney : Anything that adds pertinent information to our certificate should be looked at closely. One thing that must be considered is how many people would benefit from the additional information. It may be too soon to add show points but the concept can always be reevaluated.

Question 6: What has held up the March mailing of the ILR Directory?


Wassink : To keep fees as low as possible, we staff the office for our normal workload. Until January, even when a special project was assigned, we were able to put in extra time and effort and still complete the work on time with our regular staff. However, when two major projects came at the same time - switching from bloodtyping to DNA (as well as assuming the responsibility for the administration from UC Davis) and printing of the Directory - it was a little too much and we couldn't quite keep up. Our priorities dictated that our computer time should be spent getting the DNA system on track and the Directory was delayed. It is now at the printer and will be mailed around June 19.

Question 7: Should the board remain five-member strong with five year terms and why?


Moore: It takes at least two years for an ILR Board member to get up to speed. A two- to three-year term member would provide limited input before turn-over. Five-year terms prevent quick takeover by short term cliques with specific agendas. Five-year terms gives time to build solidarity and a team approach to problem solving.
McKinney: I believe the five and five is a good system for the Registry. Five members is large enough to provide a variety of perspectives, but small enough that directors must learn to work together. Larger boards can be effective but are more expensive and often work even more slowly than the ILR board which seems to already have a reputation for working slowly. Five years is long enough for each director to learn some history, develop more than short term perspectives and prevent rapid changes is direction that become more common with more rapid turnover of directors.
Rucker: The ILR is not an organization which changes rules and policies quickly. Continuity, fiscal responsibility, and historical perspective are of utmost importance to the stability of the Registry. A board of more than five members would be expensive, time consuming and cumbersome. We find that solid decisions and consensus generally result from discussions on our five-member board calls. The five-year terms are crucial, because of the complicated nature of many of the decisions we must make. It takes time and effort for a new board member to understand all of the ramifications of our decisions. They must grasp importation, the Canadian Registry, screening, DNA, bloodtyping, permanent identification, industry financial fluctuations, closure, the alpaca community, the history of the ILR litigation, artificial insemination, embryo transfer, members with their own individual agendas and all other topics concerning the national nature of the llama industry, including the people who are important in each area. It is important to have people on the board who have dealt with all of these issues for several years. Change is not necessarily good and many new board members are enthusiastic about doing something - the nature of a Registry requires fair and equitable enforcement of policy to all that belong, rather than ever-changing rules.
Taylor: I would support a system where the directors of the Registry are appointed by the directors of the national breed association. If this happened, the term of office might be based on review every three years with no limit to the total number of years of service. If we had the right people on the job there would be no need to replace them.

Question 8: What is the point of the $500 surcharge?


McKinney, Rucker, Carlomagno : The $500 surcharge is meant to encourage only the best animals to be imported into this country. We are essentially a closed registry which includes animals with several generations of parentage behind them. In order for animals with unknown pedigrees to be included in the registry, they must pass a rigorous physical and phenotypic screening. In addition, the importer must believe that the animals in question are worth the cost of that screening, the cost of the surcharge, and the cost of screening their offspring. If the importer does not feel a particular animal is "good" enough to return these costs, they most likely will not import that animal. People buying imports can feel a sense of security that only the best are being selected and brought into the Registry.
Taylor : In my view this surcharge is clearly an illegitimate attempt by the Registry to interfere in the llama market. Efforts by the board to justify the surcharge as anything other than market intervention smack of hypocrisy and undermine the credibility of the Registry. The surcharge is intended to limit importation of llamas and to punish and handicap those who import. This is not the proper role of the Registry. Discrimination by the Registry against any minority of registrants is restraint of trade and invites lawsuits, the corruption of the genealogy data through cheating and the creation of competing registries. We all lose in the long run if this policy is allowed to stand.

Question 9: How does the screening procedure work, and who does the screening and is there a rotational schedule?


Wassink: Screening involves a physical examination of the lama by a veterinarian and a phenotypic examination by the veterinarian and a "breeder" screener and is the only way a llama without two registered parents can be entered into the ILR database and its offspring registered. Screening must take place in the country of origin. For llamas to be imported, that involves flying a veterinary screener and a breeder screener to the country of origin to do the screening. All costs are paid by the importer. For llamas that are already in North America, the screening is done by the owner's veterinarian using the same form used for "import" screenings. Again, all costs are paid by the owner.
We have used at least eight different veterinary screeners in the last couple years and about as many breeder screeners. Screeners are selected for a particular screening on a rotating basis after consideration of the following criteria: 1) minimal cost to the owner; 2) availability of the screener during the screening "window," and 3) no disqualification because of possible conflict of interest with the owner and/or importer.
Over the last several years, most of our import screenings have been done in conjunction with alpaca screenings. This minimized expenses for the importer by allowing them to share transportation costs with alpaca importers. In those instances, because we simply used the screeners that ARI already had scheduled, we did not take part in the decision on which screeners would go.
When the choice of screeners is up to the ILR, we rotate screeners as much as the other criteria will allow. On country of origin screenings, the difference of cost between screeners is negligible so it is not considered. Then, all screeners with potential conflict-of-interests with the importer are eliminated. We then often end up going with whoever can work it into their schedule. Seldom is the first screener we contact able to go during the time period requested by the importer.
On-site screenings in North America are usually selected by calling the screener (without a known or potential conflict-of-interest with the owner) closest to the screening site (to reduce expenses to the owner) and continuing out from the screening site until we find screeners who can work it into their schedule.
Taylor : I believe that screening of animals before their acceptance into the ILR database is both legitimate and necessary. There is no substitute for good judgment on a case-by-case basis. However, the screening process is now being used as a political and economic weapon to limit importation. The Screening Committee was disbanded without a vote (or even discussion) of the board of directors or the membership and critical decisions about who does screening are made by the president on a purely arbitrary basis. There is a crying need for more fairness and transparency in this process. Screening should be a safeguard and not a weapon. If there is a rotational schedule it should be made available to anyone who requests it so that any importer could have that information upon request.

Question 10: What is the Registry's view of second generation screening?


Rucker: Second generation screening helps to weed out recessive gene problems which may not show up in parent animals. It also allows the Registry to weed out animals which exhibit alpaca traits. Many vets and serious breeders feel that three generations would serve this purpose better. The board that made the original decision about screening decided against this, because of the financial burden it would place on people who buy imports. Once animals have been brought to the U.S. we want to include them as soon as possible. That is why the surcharge is important. It forces importers to be very careful about what they select, before it ever gets to the United States.
Taylor: Unlike many Registry policies on imported animals, there is at least some justification for second generation screening. ILR requirements for this process were recently streamlined and simplified so it is less confusing and less burdensome for owners of screened animals, but we could go a little farther in that direction.
Carlomagno : The closing of the Registry and the adoption of screening rules were intended to enhance the integrity of the llama breed in the United States. Although it is still not perfect, the screening program originally adopted has been modified from time to time upon the express recommendation of nationally recognized veterinarians in the llama field. Incidentally, many of those veterinarians believe it should be three generations, and I agree.
Although the appearance of a llama at the first generation screening is important, such visible characteristics may not necessarily be passed to its offspring. Consequently, the reason for second generation screening is to ensure the quality of the animal prior to its registration.
The screening rules adopted by the ILR are intended to limit the introduction of unknown genetic material into ILR registered llamas. In addition, the screening rules will enhance the purity and integrity of the breed, allow for identification of specific genetic traits and allow scientific interbreeding of the animals with known traits to replicate those traits in their progeny. Ultimately, the screening rules will result in a higher quality animal with more predictable characteristics.
Moore : I served on ILA's board during the importation of the 90's. As a board member, I was told of last-minute animal switching resulting in llamas that did not go through the South American quarantine program being sold as animals that had. Recent imports in this part of the country show numbers of sterile males. Second generation screening is a minimal attempt at quality control. Based on meetings attended and extensive dialogue with veterinarians whose knowledge and expertise I value and respect, I would vote for three (3) generations of screening. Minimally, second generation screening is essential if we are to maintain quality as well as positive genetic influence in the American herd.
McKinney: The purpose of second generation screening is to help weed out unseen physical defects that may be hidden in imports. This gives the registration certificate more value. The "R" certificate either has two or more generations of bloodlines or two generations of medically screened animals behind it. This provides strength to the "R" classification on your certificate.

Question: 11: There are rumors that the Registry has either dropped or lost the data on our early lines. Is this true?


Wassink: I personally have not heard this rumor and don't really know how it may have originated. However, my guess is that it may have originated when our programmer was developing our current software, he understandably followed written board policy which stated that after a certain date, unregistered ancestors would no longer be printed on the registration certificates. We immediately received numerous emphatic calls from our members that those ancestors were an important part of our records and should be printed. The board agreed and we resumed printing those ancestors as soon as we could get the program modified. At no time were those records "lost."
If that is not the basis for the rumor, I have no idea what it might be. As far as I know, we still have the original paperwork of all the data that has been gathered by the Registry from the time the Registry was formed in 1985. Since the Registry came to Kalispell in 1996, we have spent thousands of hours entering more of that data into our computer system so we can not only access more data electronically but also store electronic copies of those records off-site and minimize any loss of data that might occur as a result of a fire or similar catastrophe. Just recently, we have begun scanning photographs of all the animals we have in our files and writing them to CD to protect against the loss of those images.
In short, I am not aware of any pedigree information that has been lost or dropped on any llama that has ever been registered with the International Lama Registry. Instead, I believe the data and records of the International Lama Registry are better protected and more secure now than at any time in the past.

Return Home Net Directory Advertising About Us Lower Sherwood Farm Calendar Paige