I mean, and so meeting the accreditation standards is, if a guy wants to use it and use it in the right way is good leverage and people, lots of people have used it very beneficially. The downside, the bad side of that is not all, but certainly some, a significant number of the SSP committees, and, you know, particularly when you get a very strong individual who frequently is not a animal person, who’s a psychologist or whatever, who wants to control, you know, everything that’s happening with a species or with a family, those things have been, there’ve been, you know, there’s some been some spectacular disasters and that’s been highly and caused a lot of resentment. You know, wanting to put way too much, way too much power in the hands of a very small groups and small committees that are controlled by the central office. That shouldn’t be the role, you know, being policemen and control freaks should not be the role of a service organization, like AZA, you know, even though we are also an accreditation program. And the other thing is, is they’ve become highly bureaucratic and a process. You know, they early on in our, you could go in and sit down with the AZA board and, and express a need or express a problem or whatever, you know, and, and you had decision makers that that would say, yay, nay, whatever, you know, and now it’s a, now it’s a, now it’s a bureaucratic process. And unless you’re really good at, you know, at managing and, and bureaucracy, why it’s not going to work. Continue.
