LLII - What's It All About, Alphie?

What's it All About, Alphie?

A guide to the games

by JAM (Jo Ann McGrath)
Spring 1997 - Issue #41
copyright © 1997

In attempting to sort out all the political posturing and points of view that are this very minute overwhelming both the llama and alpaca centers of power, one owner sighed and said that trying to divine the meaning in the hidden and the open agendas and drawing reasonable conclusions, is "like trying to put socks on an octopus."

ILA, LANA and ILR

Without going into the personalities, turf wars and power plays that attended the birth of the big three llama organizations, we'll just say that from the very beginning there was a schism; a divide, if not a chasm, that developed even before the owners who had the most llamas and the most influence agreed in 1986 to merge the then existing three identification systems to establish a national registry, ILR (International Lama Registry ), in such a way that it was totally independent and therefore free of any possible manipulation by anyone seeking to take some unfair advantage. Interestingly, those who want merger now, are among those who effectively created the implacable independence of the ILR - all to keep each other from oneupmanship.

In 1981, before these data were relinquished by those in possession of them, the ILA (International Llama Association ) was formed to promote llamas, and educate the public. This association was perceived by some as being 'elitist' and the creature of the wealthy 'investors.' The disapproving joined the competing LANA (Llama Association of North America ) that was formed, some believe, as a protest against the 'establishment.' Its members are primarily in the western states.

It was the belief of LANA members that LANA people 'cared' about llamas; the ILA people cared about money and prestige. Right or wrong, this perception exists still....mostly within LANA because that group made a conscious effort to embrace a philosophy that using and enjoying llamas was more important than making them an expensive commodity. ILA, it was believed (even by many of its members who don't think a quest for profit is shameful), was more interested in promoting llama marketing as a lucrative business.

RMLA

Additionally, an independent regional group formed. It was originally comprised almost exclusively of early Colorado lameros who enjoyed their llamas and each other's company. Some among them shared business interests in packing and many just liked taking their animals walkabout. This group is RMLA (Rocky Mountain Llama Association ) and It has expanded to include other interests, even those of alpaca owners (they've added another "A ").

Hybridization

But! - none of these groups is pure since some addled devotees crossed lines and commingled their interests by becoming dues-paying members of, in some instances, all three organizations. These crossovers are either extremely catholic in their thinking, or else aware that they might be missing some networking benefit were they not visible in all arenas. Still, ILR is the only organization everyone belongs to.

ALSA

ALSA is a newer organization that draws from all regions and political interests, as does ILR. This once stood for the American Llama Show Association and now, to be politically correct, "Alpaca" has replaced "American" even though alpaca participation is not yet so avid, accounting for a small fraction of shown animals. Those joining ALSA show for fun, cash prizes and for promoting their breeding programs. ALSA's recent growth has been impressive and it, like ILR, has a renewable source of income. (Since this growing organization is financially sound and founded on competition, look for it to be under constant and interesting criticism by 'right thinking' people.)

AOBA, ARSC and ARI

To the simmering stockpot we add the ILA affiliate organizations - probably at least one for every state or region (many of whose members have not joined the parent ILA) and now the alpaca people - who once had only AOBA (Alpaca Owners and Breeders Association ) and ARSC (Alpaca Registration Screening Committee ). Somewhere, somehow, ARI (Alpaca Registry, Inc ) replaced ARSC and now, having recently bought their own records and all rights to them from ILR, ARI is independent from any other camelid group (except AOBA) and hires ILR only for record keeping

ARI, in possession of a great deal of money resulting from a $500 surcharge imposed on each imported alpaca, needed to find a way to spend this lucre. A solution has been to award it to regional groups set up to help alpaca owners market their animals. A move that gives us a whole new bunch of alpaca acronyms. It has been proposed that AOBA and ARI merge into one unified alpaca association; except, of course, for all its newly created appendages. You won't be surprised to know that this was not a unanimous viewpoint and was voted down after a raft of disagreements were published.

Merger

As in all politics, mistrust, money, misunderstandings, competition, rivalries, personal animosity, malice, inefficiency, differing goals and interests have fostered rumblings of anarchy.

Because llamas are now fairly affordable, and people are actually buying them just for the pleasure of having them, there are newcomers who aren't affected by loyalties or hostilities of the past, nor by any angst about herd health, nor threats of importation, nor such pithy issues as interstate testing and transportation regulations, nor any pressing need to climb social and economic ladders. They have opted to belong to only a local organization, or to none at all.

Owners aren't now as free-spending as they were when the price of a llama was as much as a house. With ILA's budget about $290,000 - nearly half of it to support an office and staff which distributes excellent educational material provided by experts within the llama community, answers inquiries from the public, puts on a yearly conference, and publishes a directory that everyone says they want but fewer and fewer are listed as enrollment declines - it doesn't have sufficient funds for medical research projects (LMRG ) and government relations - whose acronym escapes us.

The ILA board believes the solution to its money crunch is to merge, or at least wed in some fashion, ILR and ALSA to ILA - achieving unity and giving ILA an infusion of cash.The big soups - ILR, ALSA, LANA and RMLA - resist this idea.

Alternative

An effort to add another acronym in the form of NLTF (National Llama Trust Fund ) was proposed by the erstwhile USC (Unification Steering Committee ) made up of representatives from all the major alphabets (including CLA , the Canadian Lama Association - who also just added another "A ") that had been put in place at Assembly '96 and charged with the job of getting all these groups together.

USC met, rejected the merger aspects of the goal they were assigned, found some common ground, and renamed themselves TLSC , (The Lama Steering Committee ).

Their 'almost' common ground (ILA and CLA dissented) resulted in a "trust fund" approach to guarantee that monies for medical and legal activities could be raised without raising the specter of "who is doing the spending and for what." The proposal for this trust fund, a great deal of criticism against it, and an abortive amended version of it was center stage in January at Assembly '97.

Local Government

The many-splendored benefits of local government, admired by Alexis de Tocqueville, French statesman of the early 1800's, are equally admired by conservatives and libertarians who quote him and constantly agitate for cutting off the outstretched hands (as in 'giving' and 'taking') of federal government. He concluded that all good things American emanated from local government.

The pot of local political soup that lama owners have boiled up for themselves is a strong indication of our similar desire not to leave our destinies in the hands of 'big government.' Increasingly we are resurrecting the dissatisfactions that prompted the Boston Tea Party.....except that we are not satisfied with just representation for our taxation. Our reps' intentions also must be so far above suspicion that a requirement of prior canonization would not be viewed as excessive.

Infallibility

Since perfection is not possible, a search for strong, fair and infallible leaders is thereby narrowed to include only the 'less flawed' among us to administer our hopes, dreams and cash.

Now who could these less flawed people be? Certainly those qualified by education and experience and temperament to administer. But is that enough? Shouldn't they be so neutral that they would have no vested interests in the direction we take? Who could they be? If there is no vested interest....and no salary.....can we expect applicants? And if an applicant appears, wouldn't it be natural to believe that since altruism is in short supply, his or her objectives are questionable?

Not Even A Benevolent Despot

In an effort to avert the possibility of acquiring a despot, and to save us the trouble of actually having to know what the issues that concern us are, we rely on committees and representatives and boards of directors to act on our behalf. A 'board' sounds exquisitely democratic but these are frequently peopled by 'do-nothings' or 'know-nothings,' and dominated by the strongest, smartest or loudest member.

If the membership at large see that dominance and think it is 'cupidity' (unaccountably less acceptable than 'sheer stupidity') all hell breaks loose.That's when marbles are pocketed and a new game erupts. This new game has one purpose: To make work what couldn't work with the hindrance of the 'wrongheaded' (i.e. - anyone with a different point of view). But the irony is that just as soon as the new game is in place, people will differ, argue, get mad and move the game again.

Selection Process

When disenchantment with leadership overtakes us, there is only one course of action open. We must throw out the scoundrels and search out new leaders to show us the one true path to prosperity. New leaders who can pass a battery of tests.
Maybe a test by a new age detective who can empathically ferret out the hidden chambers of one's secret heart and lay bare all that is unhealthy, (as in 'self-serving'). Then to a psychiatrist to see if any of these 'unhealthy' tendencies have birthed a pattern of violent retaliation when the candidate meets another opinion. (We don't have to agree with each other, or even like each other.....we just mustn't resort to drawing blood from one another.) The next test should be a fiduciary audit to determine if the candidate has too much or too little money; (both conditions being suspect).

Trust

If we didn't have human nature to impede us, the solution to unification could be simple. Registries have it all....the members, the money - or at least the potential for money - that could be used to fund medical research and governmental task forces to explain our positions to the mother of all soups - the US Feds. The registries have the records of all lama owners and these data could generate a directory with EVERYBODY in it. Plus, the personnel, now performing duplicate functions could be cut back or located in one office - maybe even share computers and software....with one electricity bill!

Of course it would require overhauling the ILR bylaws (providing years of arguments about how) with filing of various needed 501's; and a reconfiguration of the board so that all the soups could send a centurian; and shorter terms for the board members so we could throw them out more often; and majority agreement from the 15,296 lama owners in the registry. It would certainly simplify the choices of whom to hate and fear.

Voice of the Octopus

With ILR there is the 'motor-voter' question about whether it is fair to include the votes of those who aren't up on the issues and just respond to buzz words. Many of these are 'automatic' ILR members who haven't spent $10 to register an animal in years....and who may no longer even own a llama with a pulse. They are almost half the 15,000 plus membership. Should their views be equal to those who have invested beau coup bucks? Without these bucks supporting us, do we still have an industry? Does registering 50 or more animals annually make the registrant the 'elite' and too influential?

And what about those who don't want to stop importation?....and why not? And those who do?....and why? And those who think SA's are better....no matter the mystery genes? Aren't NA advocates equally snobbish? And those who want to profit and those who don't?...or can't? And those who want to record genetic flaws? And those who think that would be unfriendly to commerce? And wouldn't a registry, or any unified board, with all that 'power' residing in, say, nine people, be too monolithic to contemplate? Given our convoluted thinking, is unity too simple?

Yessiree! You just hold that tentacle and I'll put the sock on it.