And I think in the last 15, 20 years, we really began, although we say we’re building naturalistic exhibits for the species, what we’re really have been doing is doing it for the public and the public’s perception of what it should be. And it, like I said, the research has shown is I could have a smaller exhibit and provide more enrichment opportunities and more choices in how I design it, whether it’s rock structures, whether it’s temperature zones, whatever it may be to give an animal a higher quality of welfare in life without getting big and grandiose. And what bothers me about it is you can spend 70 and $80 million on an exhibit, but do you really need to, and can that money be spent in research and other welfare aspects for your collection, then putting in a big exhibit for one species that costs $70 million because you wanted to make it naturalistic for who the animal or for the public. And that’s been an issue, you know, getting public acceptance because of organizations out there that have made noises about whether a zoo is ethical or not. So we, we try to respond to that and, and create things that are pleasing to the public, whereas I think we can meet the needs and welfare of species much better without going to that extreme. And, and of course the, the issue with that is zoos, most zoos are confined. They either, if they’re a municipality zoo, they’re got buildings around them and they can’t really expand.
