Canadian Regisrty & ARI Registry Reciprocity Issues: A History

By Libby Forstner, President
Alpaca Registry, Inc.

The Alpaca Registry, Inc.’s (ARI) Board of Directors has had a number of individuals from Canada, and a few from the U.S., asking us some good questions. Basically, they have asked why the ARI Board turned down the Canadian Registry Board’s request in 2002 to enter into negotiations to develop a Reciprocity agreement between the Alpaca Registry, Inc. and the Canadian Registry.

First, some history: In 1998, the ARI membership voted to close the Alpaca Registry, Inc. to imports/alpacas of unknown parentage. The following are some of the reasons that the membership choose to close the registry:

Threat of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and other serious health risks entering the U.S.
The ARI had built a strong foundation of genetics which rivaled those in South America
To protect our industry from massive imports which could result in economic pressure on members who already owned ARI registered alpacas
To prevent the inadvertent introduction of hidden genetic defects. The registration of alpacas without scientifically tested parentage results in registering genetic black boxes. We simply do not know what genetic material or defects these alpacas may carry.
Having a closed registry allows us to cull out genetic defects over time.
Alpacas with known and scientifically tested parentage are more valuable for purposes of improving breeding stock than an alpaca with unknown ancestors.

The ARI membership, through initiative petition, forced the ARI Board in place at that time to send the closure issue to a membership vote. Closure passed by a landslide and the Registry was closed to imports effective December 31, 1998.

Prior to closure, some importers and their supporters argued that “euphoric price spiking” would occur if the registry were closed. This did not happen and we are continuing to enjoy a very strong, stable and growing industry today. We were told that some others would ignore closure and would establish their own registry to compete with ARI. This did not happen. The only attempt at establishing a second registry was the “World Registry” and not ONE ARI member signed their alpacas up for this Registry and the attempt to establish this second registry to compete with ARI, failed.

There is no argument even to this day about the value of a strong and SINGLE Registry. Around the world, the alpacas that are consistently considered the best and most marketable are those registered with the Alpaca Registry, Inc. The ARI Registration Certification is THE most highly sought after registration certificate in the world. As an industry, we have worked hard to keep it this way.

While the membership had voted to close the Registry with the intent that only the membership could reopen the Registry, the ARI Board at that time placed the closure provisions in the ARI Policy Manual and not in the Bylaws. In 2001, a new ARI Board realized with the help of legal counsel that because the closure provisions were placed in the ARI Policies, a unanimous simple vote of the ARI Board could have reopened the Registry. This was because the Bylaws gave the Board of Directors the authority to change policies. In the spring of 2002, the ARI Board and the ARI membership solved this problem by voting overwhelmingly to move control over reopening of the Registry to a special section of the Bylaws where a vote of the membership is required.

Shortly after the closure vote, an individual approached those who had supported the closure campaign and warned them that there were individuals trying to reopen the Registry via reciprocity agreements. Reciprocity is when (for example) two registries recognize the registration of each other’s animals. They exchange pedigree files and agree that new registrations will be honored by both registries. The reality is that a reciprocity agreement will function to open our Registry. To make a long story short, in the spring of 2002, the membership voted to also move control over Reciprocity to the ARI Bylaws, requiring that any and all reciprocity agreements MUST be approved by a vote of the ARI membership.

On August 1, 2002, the ARI Board received the following request from the Canadian Llama and Alpaca Association (CLAA):

“We, the Board of Directors of the Canadian Llama and Alpaca Association (aka CLAA), have been commissioned by the alpaca breeders of our Association to address the issue of bilateral registry recognition between CLAA and the Alpaca Registry, Inc.” In other words, a Reciprocity Agreement.

After some correspondence back and forth, the ARI Board turned down the request from the CLAA to enter into negotiations for a number of reasons. Here are some of those reasons:

The ARI Board of Directors has no authority to enter into any reciprocity agreement; only the membership can do this through a vote.
The ARI Board could not see how such an agreement would be in the best interests of ARI members regardless of where in the world the alpacas resided. The membership had closed the ARI registry for reasons stated above and a reciprocity agreement is simply a way to open the Registry, bringing back the very same problems and concerns we were experiencing prior to 1998. Only this time, the imports would all be coming from, or through, Canada.
The power of the ARI pedigree in Canada is strong. Sales are strongest for ARI registered alpacas (or dual registered ARI/CLAA alpacas.) A reciprocity agreement with Canada would allow thousands of CLAA registered alpacas to become ARI registered and would destroy the market for the pre-existing ARI registered alpacas, disenfranchising our ARI Canadian members.
American ARI alpaca owners spend literally millions of dollars each year (AOBA marketing, I Love Alpacas coop marketing, each and every ARI alpaca farm, and Affiliates) promoting the ARI Registered alpaca industry. There have been no such attempts in Canada on such a scale. According to the CLAA website, approximately $175,000 has been set aside for national marketing. This means that the push would be for alpacas to come south, not north, with increased economic strain on ARI members, both American and Canadian.
The difference in the dollar makes a reciprocity agreement nearly impossible. Canada’s dollar is much weaker than the U.S. dollar. This makes it much more attractive for Canadian members to sell in the U.S. than for the U.S. to sell in Canada, where alpacas would sell for much less. It doesn’t take a lot of thought to figure out that the CLAA members would realize almost all of the sales and not ARI members.
Quarantine requirements were incredibly unfair to U.S. Breeders when the ARI Board made their decision in 2002. While it usually took less than 48 hours to get an alpaca through quarantine into the U.S., it usually took as long as six months to get an alpaca through quarantine into Canada. We saw this as just one more reason why sales into Canada were unlikely. (Note: Recent changes in the Canadian quarantine process have made this process faster. However, the process of selling and sending alpacas into Canada still takes months and is still long and difficult.)
There are ARI alpacas in both the U.S. and Canada. In spite of the huge number of ARI alpacas in the U.S. and only small numbers of ARI alpacas in Canada, most ARI alpacas sold between the U.S. and Canada are coming into the U.S. There are currently 4,538 ARI REGISTERED alpacas in Canada. Consider the following which represents ONLY ARI registered alpacas:

2000: 18 ARI- registered alpacas were sold from the U.S. into Canada
2001: 39 ARI alpacas were sold from U.S. into Canada
2002: 15 ARI alpacas were sold from U.S. into Canada
2003: 17 ARI alpacas were sold from U.S. into Canada (as of 10/20/03)

Here are the numbers that were sold from Canada INTO the U.S.:

2000: 114 ARI alpacas were sold from Canada to the U.S.
2001: 220 ARI alpacas were sold from Canada into the U.S.
2002: 573 ARI alpacas were sold from Canada into the U.S.
2003: 307 ARI alpacas were sold from Canada into the U.S. through 10/20/03
(U.S. border closed to all ruminants by the USDA because of Mad Cow Disease, found in Canada)

As you can see, the overwhelming tendency is for ARI registered alpacas to “come south.” The main reason sales into the U.S. in 2003 haven’t exceeded 2002 sales can be attributed to the current border closure to ruminants which happened earlier this year. The numbers clearly show that a major number of ARI breeders in Canada sell the largest part of their ARI alpaca production in the U.S., not in Canada. It’s easy to see why individuals who don’t own ARI Registered alpacas would want to get their alpacas registered with ARI.

Many believe that the U.S. ARI market can economically handle the current production from the ARI registered alpacas in Canada (because it is already doing so) but do ARI members really want to see the number of ARI alpacas suddenly increase by many thousands of alpacas annually via an agreement?

The ARI Board believes that opening the ARI Registry through reciprocity with any country, including Canada, would subject ARI to the same issues we had when the membership closed the registry as stated earlier in this article.

Consider the following recent major changes to the CLAA.
1. Until recently a cria born of two CLAA registered alpacas living outside of Canada were NOT eligible for registration in CLAA. This was changed recently and they are now eligible for registration. If individuals in the U.S. purchase alpacas that are only registered with CLAA and can now register the offspring with CLAA, then there will be great pressure to promote CLAA as a second registry. Imagine your farm marketing ARI registered alpacas and your neighbor marketing CLAA registered alpacas.
2. The CLAA has opened their registry to alpacas not currently registered in the CLAA. They are doing this through “breed-up” procedures where CLAA registered alpacas are bred to NON-registered alpacas. (ARI does not permit this.)
3. Alpacas are eligible to be registered as Purebred if the alpacas have no less than three generations of individually registered Purebred or Foundation Stock Ancestors in a recognized foreign Registry, and meets all other qualifications for recognition. This means their registry is open to not just “breeding up” scenarios but also imports from foreign countries with registries showing only three generations. This is not a difficult process, especially for countries wanting access to the North American market. (ARI’s registry is closed; ARI does not permit this.)

These “breed-up” procedures and acceptance of alpacas into their “purebred registry” from ANY registry in the world as long as they can they show three generations of bloodlines could open a door which would allow alpacas from registries other than ARI to become eligible for registration in CLAA and importation in Canada. If the ARI were to enter into a reciprocity agreement with the CLAA, the likely result would be that these “bred-up” alpacas, and three-generation alpacas, once registered in the CLAA could be eligible for registration in the ARI through reciprocity.

ARI has adhered firmly to our purebred requirement that only the offspring of two registered ARI alpacas are eligible for registration in ARI. Therefore, our definition of “purebred” and their definitions definitely do not match. How would we know “which was which.” Since we would have no control over CLAA’s definitions, what if they made them even less stringent than they are now? In the CLAA, they do not hold to our requirement of “purebred” meaning that unregistered alpacas can be used in their breeding program. Here are their definitions which would not match or “mesh well” with our definitions:

CLAA BYLAW AMENDMENTS:

Bylaw Amendments 20.6; 20.7 and 20.9
These amendments are now in effect

Bylaw Amendment 20.6

20.6 (1) PUREBRED: - All Animals are eligible to be registered as Purebred if: (Emphasis added.)

Both the sire and the dam are registered in the herd book of the association as either Foundation Stock or Purebred; or
The animal has no less than three generations of individually registered Purebred or Foundation Stock ancestors in a recognized foreign registry, and meets all other qualifications for recognition; or
If an animal is the result of breeding up, it has no less than 15/16 inheritance relating back to Foundation Stock or Purebred ancestry in the herd book of the Association or the equivalent of Foundation Stock and or Purebred ancestry in a recognized foreign registry. At least one parent must be registered Foundation Stock and or Purebred in the herd book of the Association.

20.6 (2) BREEDING UP: -Animals may be registered as percentage purebred, which have less than 15/16 inheritance provided that:

All known ancestors are the same breed, and the subject animal has one parent registered as Foundation Stock or Purebred.
Animals not eligible for registration may be recorded in the Registry, as 0%, for purposes of breeding up provided that all known ancestors are of the same breed and the subject animals meet CLAA minimum breed standards for the species or breed. The Board of Directors shall ensure that the animal complies with breed standards before recording. This will require screening to the standards. No certificate will be issued for a recorded animal. For the offspring of such an animal to be registered as percentage purebred, the subject animal must have been mated with a Foundation Stock or Purebred male or female of the same breed.
Animals will not be eligible to enter the breed up program if the Applicant or the Association is aware of any genetic disorders in the animal, or any of its ancestors.
Percentage purebred certificates: Certificates for percentage purebred animals shall be of a different color than those issued for purebred animals. The percent of inheritance shall be clearly displayed on the certificate.

BREEDING-UP

	Recorded 0% Sire	50% Sire	75% Sire	87 ˝ % Sire	93 ľ % Sire or Foundation or Purebred
Recorded Dam 0%	No Status	No Status	No Status	No Status	50% Cria (1/2)
50% Dam (1/2)	No Status	No Status	No Status	No Status	75% Cria (3/4)
75% Dam (3/4)	No Status	No Status	No Status	No Status	87 ˝ % Cria (7/8)
87 ˝ % Dam (7/8)	No Status	No Status	No Status	No Status	15/16 Cria Purebred

20.6 (3) Percentage animals resulting from the Registry Agreement year 2000: Notwithstanding articles 20.6 (1)(c) and 20.6 (2), any Animal that was afforded 50% status under the Registry Agreement, between the CLAA and the AAFC signed during the year 2000, may be registered as ˝ purebred. Descendants may be graded up as shown in the following table:

Amendment 20.7
20.7 - 0% Animals: For the purpose of breeding up, an animal not eligible to be registered may be recorded, provided it meets the requirements outlined in article 20.6(2)(b).

Amendment 20.9
20.9(1) Screening 0% animals: The Board of Directors in consultation with the Pedigree Committee shall determine: the screening procedure and criteria, the method of accrediting screeners and the fees required for the screening of animals, for the purpose of recordation and entry into the breed-up program at 0%

The following amendment was not accepted by the Minister of Agriculture and is not effective: 20.9(2) Screening animals from a recognized foreign registry: The Board of Directors in consultation with the Registry Recognition Committee shall determine the screening procedure and criteria, the method of accrediting screeners, and the fees required for the screening of animals pursuant to any foreign registry recognition, as set out and approved by a resolution of the membership.

In their “breeding up” program, non-registered alpacas are allowed to breed with registered alpacas and after a number of generations are considered “purebred.” It is clear that the Canadian Registry does not match our definition of “purebred” alpacas.

When the ARI membership closed the Registry in 1998, they did so knowing that ARI would lose revenue from import screening fees, set at $500 per alpaca imported. However, what this meant was that while the Association did not earn the $500 screening fee per alpaca imported, it meant somewhere an ARI breeder would sell his or her alpaca instead and the alpaca sale for the breeder far outweighed the lost $500 screening fee for the Association.
We would have no control over CLAA policies. Most likely, it would mean more alpacas flooding into the CLAA registry AND into any registry which has a reciprocity agreement.
We are concerned that in establishing a Reciprocity agreement with Canada, we would be setting a precedent. It’s fair to assume that other countries would want a similar agreement, including South American countries. We decided that the risks of opening the Registry in any fashion were too great.
The ARI Board did not believe that 2/3 of the ARI membership voting would support or vote for a reciprocity agreement.
More alpacas being registered in ARI from CLAA would mean more alpacas crossing over into the U.S., increasing the potential for more health risks, since we established that most sales are made from Canada into the U.S.
If we entered into a Reciprocity agreement, we realized that we would have no control over the CLAA nor their screening polices, and yet would be bound to accept non- “pure bred” alpacas into our registry that we might not wish to have in the Registry. Even if forbidden by contract, enforcement would be difficult and costly.
Shortly after the CLAA sent their letter asking that ARI enter into negotiations to establish a reciprocity agreement, some CLAA members began to advertise that their alpacas would soon be able to be registered with ARI through a Reciprocity Agreement and unregistered alpacas (i.e. unregistered with ARI) began moving in increasing numbers into the U.S. as evidenced by the number of complaints and calls received by the ARI Board and the ARI office. It gave the Board an idea of just what would happen should an agreement actually come to fruition.
ARI would not have any control over new alpacas imported into Canada either through an opening of that Registry or through new breed-up practices.

The ARI Board looked at all of the issues and felt that there weren’t any advantages for ARI members to enter into a reciprocity agreement with the Canadian Registry. All of the advantages were on the side of the CLAA membership. The ARI Board decided that a reciprocity agreement would not be in the best interests of ARI members, regardless of where they resided in the world.

Let everyone know you support only ARI-Registered alpacas by adding a statement to your promotional materials that states that you buy, sell and support only ARI-Registered alpacas.

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.