I have gotten to the point after the multiple recitations of past ills and events, to saying to myself, "yeah, yeah, I know, but what does that have to do with the price of eggs on Saturday?" Learn from the past, but don't wallow in it!
It also interests me when folks say that AOBA will compromise the integrity of the Registry. I have to ask the question how? ARI and the new organization require in the bylaws that parentage be validated through the use of DNA testing. That can change only with the vote of the membership!
I also do not appreciate in Eric's letter, that "master strokes" are at play. That implies that I am either a puppet, or ignorant. I really don't appreciate either choice. I have with several other members of the Board and Staff of both organizations spent hundreds of hours investigating our options through strategic planning. We are neither ignorant, nor puppets.
This may surprise some, but all of the Board Members acknowledge the mistakes that have been made in the past by BOTH organizations. We acknowledge the "history".
But staying in that past and dredging up that History that is often recited inaccurately does little to address the needs of our industry, organizations, or members now and into the future. You can choose to assume the future will be bleak by merging our two organizations which is what I am hearing from those opposed, or you can see the "writing on the wall", understand that slowly the ARI services that seem to be almost universally praised will become more limited, ie no new rollouts of software that improve the functionality of the website, longer times for registrations etc. etc.
I prefer to vote for a better future for our combined organization, one where it will be less of a struggle to find committed volunteers to serve on committees and boards, one where the IT talents can cover all of the things our membership would like to accomplish online, one where we offer a single well branded website for members and the public to go for all things related to alpacas. One that can be more responsive to members for we will have an extremely talented and committed Executive Director and staff that can help to develop a new organization that better meets the needs of its members.
I see a tremendous opportunity to rebrand our organization so that members will want to return to purchasing a membership for the value they find in doing so. Frankly, I feel that those who have left AOBA are so bitter that they will never be back, no matter what AOBA accomplishes. A new organization that proves itself will be better able to get them back, because it won't have to overcome that bias.
Please do not misinterpret what I am saying to mean that I don't think the current AOBA Board and Staff aren't doing a good job. They are. They have reopened channels of communication between them and affiliates and righted the financial ship among other things. Unfortunately they carry the mantle- and it is a huge and heavy one- of everything that has not been done well in the past.
Focus on the past and vote no, or look forward, acknowledge the strengths of both organizations, see the potential for a better future, and vote yes. The reality is that we are a changing industry, from warm and fuzzy to livestock. The adjustment will continue to be a difficult one until we get there. Our national organizations must adjust to that change too. Basing a decision on what happened in the past under the warm and fuzzy model is not appropriate. Basing your decision on the parameters we are under now, is.
That was much longer than I intended!
Have a great one, and thanks for your passion, no matter which way you vote!
Laurel
This is a personal viewpoint and does not
represent the position of Alpaca Registry, Inc.
The Shouvlins
Bluebird Hills Farm
3617 Derr Road
Springfield, Ohio 45503
937-206-3936
www.bluebirdhills.com
bluebirdhills@voyager.net
> I received the following post with accurate information from a longtime
> educator that should be considered before casting your vote on merger:
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________
>
> WHY MERGING AOBA & ARI IS NOT A GOOD IDEA FOR MOST ALPACA OWNERS
>
> My name is Eric Hoffman. I’ve been involved with camelids since 1977. A
> number of concerned small breeders have contacted me to say that they feel
> they have no voice in the proposed ARI/AOBA merger. I do not have a
> crystal
> ball to tell the future, but I do know enough to be certain that merging
> ARI
> to AOBA to create an entirely new entity will not strengthen the registry,
> and share their concern that it may in fact destroy it. As one of the
> founders of the alpaca industry in North America I’m saddened, but not
> surprised to see the idea of merging ARI and AOBA once again being
> championed, primarily by the kind of thinking and some of the same people
> who tried it before.
>
> The AOBA/ARI merger we are being asked to vote on has all the earmarks of
> other “master strokes” (grandiose proposals for radical change within the
> alpaca community) that have occurred in the past. None of them have turned
> out as advertised. Past actions that come to mind include: in 2003
> severing
> the Alpaca Registry contract run by the well-functioning ILR in favor of
> moving it to a business in Virginia that had no experience in running
> registries. This disaster cast us all into a nightmare of compromised
> records and registrations that took years to unravel. The result was
> inaccurate certificates being issued, and lag times up to 20 months to
> receive a certificate. It was also expensive to fix. At about the same
> time
> (2002) uproar was created throughout the community by the filing of a
> lawsuit to change the show rules that had been approved by a majority vote
> of AOBA members. Fighting the suit paralyzed the AOBA BOD. The suit got
> nowhere in court. In his conclusion, presiding District Judge Hiatt said:
> “The court has reviewed the motion and finds it to be entirely without
> merit. Nothing has been presented that would be a valid reason for
> reconsideration.” The judge also noted that there were “overheated
> assertions.” Most of the people who brought this suit are still active in
> the alpaca community, and some are active in the merger issue.
>
> Further back, in 1998, there was the much applauded registry closure
> initiative launched by a small group of breeders. Their stated intent was
> to
> end imports entirely. Many alpaca owners who voted for it were surprised
> to
> learn after the initiative passed that a small importation grace period
> existed. This window of opportunity allowed well-financed breeders to
> stockpile animals and set up lucrative breeding programs in a captive
> market, while the less well-heeled watched and wondered how nearly 3000
> alpacas were being allowed into the country. This was almost the same
> number of animals that had entered the country over the previous four-year
> period under the ARI screening program. After all, the membership had just
> voted to end the competition of imported animals. Closure also negated the
> possibility of US breeders utilizing 98 % of the world’s alpaca genetics,
> which remain outside our boarders.
>
> The fact that a carefully constructed but inaccurate registry history has
> been emailed to merger voters is a telltale sign to me and other former
> board members that the design for this merger of AOBA and ARI involves,
> not
> only the BODs, but the same people who have designed “master strokes” in
> the
> past. (If you are new to alpacas check your sources!) The latest is the
> proposed ARI/AOBA merger. I hope the preceding abbreviated record
> illustrates to you why I, and others who have been around awhile feel that
> the chances of this merger benefiting ARI or saving AOBA are slim to none.
>
> I’m the author of the Alpaca Registry ARI (which began March l989), the
> founding two-term President of AOBA, former President of ARI 1998-1999 and
> longtime (6 year) board member first with ARSC, which became ARI. I wrote
> the ARI Screening Manual with Murray Fowler DVM, Brad Smith DVM & D.
> Schieferstein creating an objective evaluation for conformation, phenotype
> characteristics & fiber quality that has been used around the world, and
> is
> still in use today. As a screener I’ve evaluated over 15,000 alpacas for
> all the major alpaca registries in the world including ARI. I served for
> 2
> years as the Co-chair of the ALSA/AOBA Show Committee at the onset of
> alpaca
> shows in the US. I edited the Alpaca Registry Journal (1994-2001), a peer
> reviewed scientific publication that was sent at no cost, to all owners of
> registered alpacas. I’m the primary author of The Complete Alpaca Book,
> co-author with Murray Fowler, DVM of The Alpaca Book and co-author with
> Sherry Edensmith and Pat Long DVM of The Alpaca Evaluation: a guide for
> owners and breeders, handbook & DVD. My camelid herd includes alpacas,
> two
> stalwart pack llamas and guanacos. All of this is just to let you know
> that
> I have been around a long time and have done my best to improve the
> industry. For me this push for merger is, as Yogi Berra would say: “Déjà
> vu,
> all over again.”
>
> I did not renew my membership in AOBA about ten years ago. I could no
> longer
> see how the organization I’d helped create, helped me as an individual
> alpaca breeder. There were still some good board members who conducted
> themselves admirably in trying solving problems and improving things, but
> the overall climate had changed. There was more instability and rancor.
> Demonizing people with differing opinions became common place. Among those
> dominating the Internet there was a marked intolerance towards contrary
> viewpoints, which stifled a free exchange of ideas. Around 2005 I started
> to
> see breeders quit the business because of the change in social climate and
> lack of responsiveness to their concerns. After severing ties with AOBA I
> continued to successfully sell alpacas, and continued to enjoy making
> presentations to breeders around the world. My focus, for more than 24
> years, remains on creating healthy alpacas with outstanding fiber.
>
> ARI can help me achieve that goal by remaining an unassailable repository
> for genetic information. The alpaca registry tracks lineages through DNA
> technology, a constantly evolving science that, if properly applied, has
> the
> potential to improve alpacas by identifying and eliminating genetic
> diseases
> and developing a more desirable fiber. The registry has a fee system to
> support its existence and the potential to expand its services providing
> it
> does not become bogged down in activities unrelated to running a science
> based registry. The registry has a fee system and should be able to pay
> its
> way.
>
> The Alpaca Research Foundation (ARF) does an excellent job maintaining its
> independence, and operating professionally to fund important research
> grants
> that serve all alpaca owners. It can pay its way.
>
> ARI and AOBA have always had different functions. The Registry is about
> applied science. AOBA is about marketing, shows, and education. Of the
> three national organizations AOBA is having the hardest time covering its
> costs.
>
> ARI has used DNA markers to separate the alpaca and llama gene pools in
> the
> US for 24 years. I think joining it with the marketing and show interests
> of AOBA would compromise the integrity of ARI. I believe AOBA is looking
> at
> ARI as a “cash cow” (cash alpaca?) to prop up its falling income.
>
> Already I see areas of concern for the future integrity of ARI as a
> repository for genetic information. For example there is some controversy
> about the inclusion of EPDs into the registry. They look like science, but
> the reality is this is a subjective evaluation because the owner collects
> the fiber samples that are submitted, not a neutral third party as was
> done
> with the fiber samples collected during the screening process.
>
> ARI’s acceptance of advertising for particular animals demonstrates a move
> away from science into marketing and erodes the initial intent of the
> registry to be a neutral repository for genetic information that is
> transparent and accessible to all owners. If unchecked embracing glitz,
> hype and questionable claims of superiority in front and center ads on the
> ARI website will drive the same wedge between breeders that has existed in
> the show arena. This is directly in opposition to the egalitarian design
> and intent of the registry. What’s next?
>
>
> I believe AOBA’s problems have been caused by a myriad of reasons
> involving
> our overall economy, plus problems within the organization that have been
> festering for years that involve dissatisfaction with shows and outreach.
>
> Costly AOBA seminars and fees price these resources beyond the reach of
> many
> breeders. Some regional organizations can now duplicate many of AOBA’s
> services at a comparable price. AOBA has had a 42% drop in membership
> since 2008 according to BOD member Scott Miller [in a 11-2-13 posting].
>
> Before discussing postings by Scott Miller and other AOBA merger
> proponents
> I’d like to thank Scott for his polite and thorough answers to Julie
> Skinner’s questions, proving once again a civil exchange is the best way
> to
> solve problems. Of course without asking questions, as Julie has done, we
> couldn’t have received answers.
>
> It seems however there is a price to be paid for challenging the merger.
> Julie has been notified that although she was nominated, and she filled
> out
> the required paperwork, she was not accepted as a candidate, thus
> silencing
> her opinions in the general debate and removing the possibility of her
> becoming a part of the ARI board. I’ve served with Julie, she is a
> knowledgeable person who has worked for the benefit of alpacas and their
> owners. I’d like to know why she was not allowed to run and let the
> voters
> decide whether her ideas are constructive. The issue is not what Julie
> Skinner believes or does not believe, it is whether or not the democratic
> process is allowed to take place in the alpaca community.
>
> In answer to Julie Skinner’s questions on 11-2-13, Scott offers the
> efforts
> he and AOBA have put forth to explain why AOBA should be absorbed into ARI
> which will give birth to an entirely new organization. Though Scott
> doesn’t
> directly say it we are being asked to believe that from this union the
> emerging organization will be functional, efficient and address the needs
> of
> all breeders. What guarantees are there that a new form of governance will
> work well, or at all, especially considering the history recited above? My
> experience of witnessing other “master strokes” and serving on BODs in
> periods of comprehensive change is that things often develop a life of
> their
> own and the desired outcome is not predictable. Part of what is being
> proposed is ARI will absorb AOBA’s debts and liabilities. What does this
> mean? In reading other posts I see a desire to keep the traditional
> formula
> alive: shows, education other activities. What seems to be missing, or not
> clearly articulated is the new vision to fit today’s reality. Is the
> merger
> an attempt “save” what no longer works? For example, show ribbons don’t
> pay
> the hay bill for most forms of livestock, including today’s alpacas.
>
> Would it be better to involve those interested in saving AOBA in reforming
> its programs rather than saddle ARI with them and make and entirely new
> organizations whose bylaws are yet to be seen? Miller is convincing in
> explaining that AOBA’s BOD has worked hard. The sad part is the hard work
> and spending hasn’t remedied AOBA’s downward trajectory. Kudos for the
> dedication and hard work, but how would ARI or the proposed ARI/AOBA new
> organization (whose by-laws are yet to be seen) change this trajectory?
> And, are the risks to the Registry worth gamble that comes with a new
> organization?
>
> I’d like to visit the subject of show judges. In his response to Julie
> Skinner Scott says: “AOBA has the best show system in the world…the best
> judges in the world and best training program in the world.” I hope Scott
> is right. I know a lot of effort has gone into developing a judging system
> in the US and I am proud to have contributed to it in the formative years.
> I
> was an advocate for developing competitions in the different colors to
> both
> broaden the gene pool’s representation and show off the color diversity.
>
> I’ve been involved with evaluating alpacas in various countries and
> formats
> for 20 years. There are many variables. The most dedicated culture I’ve
> worked with in terms of alpaca evaluation is Germany. Their dedication,
> penchant for detail, willingness to study and require formal testing to
> attain mastery is very impressive. I’ve watched judges work in Australia,
> New Zealand, Canada, South America, Europe and the US. I believe worldwide
> there are many good judges and some are from AOBA. To me “best” involves
> more than knowledge and training. An area of concern about judges usually
> isn’t that they don’t know the animal. The rubs are in the area of
> conflict
> of interest and how it is defined and lack of consistency.
>
> For the most part judges, around the world, come from the ranks of
> breeders..
> I believe the activities of judges as broker/sellers, fixtures in seminars
> on farms who compete regularly in shows, and judges who advertise and
> promote a particular source herd name as superior then go about judging
> animals from this herd against animals from other source herds are reasons
> that can cause doubt in owners.
>
> There are judges who do not use their status as a marketing tool. This is
> the profile I like most. Though I believe in general judges try to do the
> best they can, the fact remains there have been some problems in all
> judging
> systems, usually to do with ethical issues and consistency. Participating
> in an alpaca show can be fun, but at the end of the day awards are given
> based on the subjective opinion of the judge. In my view more work is
> needed
> in the area of conflict of interest and judges who perhaps instituting
> time
> limits to the amount of time a person judges.
>
> We all know shows have been a central focus for AOBA. The idea is if you
> get
> a ribbon it will help you market your animals and have an advantage over
> your fellow breeders. Judges become the gatekeepers in such a system of
> who
> wins and who loses. However, in my experience, if a true assessment of an
> animal’s phenotypic characteristics, structure and fiber is the goal, a
> veterinary soundness exam, phenotypic checklist and fiber testing with
> recorded results will produce a more accurate record of value. In the all
> important area of fiber quality I have read papers that have compared the
> results of judges (in alpacas & other fiber producing species) compared to
> OFDA approved and other scientific testing and testing is more accurate.
>
> AOBA’s road to prominence was paved by money from ARI: As an organization
> AOBA was able to create a more public presence because about 60%
> ($1,879,800) of the $3,133,000 collected in screening fees for imported
> animals in the 1990’s ($500 per head x 6,266 screened alpacas from South
> America, Australia and New Zealand). The $1,879,800 was for the most part
> transferred to AOBA in the form of grants. When imports were banned these
> funding sources disappeared. Sadly, AOBA’s funding sources have been hit
> hard times: membership has dropped precipitously, participation in shows
> and
> attendance of seminars has fallen.
>
> In the proposed merger, who gets the funds generated by the remaining
> income
> streams? (ARI registration fees for example?) If there is not enough
> revenue
> to cover expenses for ARI and AOBA, who will decide what will be
> jettisoned?
> Will the registry’s founding principles of equal representation and access
> that contributed so greatly to high compliance by breeders be abandoned,
> as
> promotional advertising becomes a part of the registry?
>
> Even after the alpaca market began to falter people were still enticed
> into
> buying animals at prices they could never duplicate. People buying on
> time
> payment contracts found they were imitating what happened in the housing
> market. They were under water. In the early years of the alpaca business
> there were no time payments. It will take time and a great deal of energy
> to create a new business model that is economically sound. We still have a
> wonderful animal to work with.
>
> The successful product-oriented farms I know of here and overseas are
> often
> only minimally attached to any organizations. Their focus is getting their
> products to market. The truth is, for an organization promoting alpacas to
> be credible they will need to include what Australians call hobby-farmers
> who own animals for enjoyment, not for necessary income. Perhaps AOBA
> needs
> to provide more improved education and support in the areas small breeders
> need to address everyday concerns. Information needs to be developed that
> promotes sales of all kinds of alpacas and how to best manage all aspects
> of
> a farm to achieve a profit. Another approach might be to shrink AOBA as an
> independent entity and divest some of their responsibilities to regional
> organizations. I’m all for diversity. This would address the problem of
> centralizing all power and allow different approaches and viewpoints to go
> forward. It might also be less expensive, cutting travel costs. We’re in
> a
> new circumstance. A rethink is needed.
>
> Good luck.
> Eric Hoffman
> www.bonnydoonalpacas.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> ____
> Lona Nelsen Frank
> ALPACAS of Tualatin Valley, llc Since 1988
> Beaverton, Oregon 97007
> 503-649-2128 or cell 503-936-7722
> www.AlpacaTV.com
>
>
Message posts are the opinion of individuals posting and are not necessarily endorsed or approved by Yahoo! or the moderator of this group. The purpose of this discussion group is to ensure that all points of view can be aired. It is the responsibility of all individuals who post to treat others with respect and civility.
