importantly, although there was no regular or even frequent ranger presence in the "permit area" before the permit system, since the permit system was implemented a ranger is stationed in the "permit area" on most days throughout the entire visitor use season to check permits and provide information about weather conditions and related factors. As noted in the article, the SAR incidents used in the analysis are recorded by rangers; correspondingly, the very means by which SAR incidents are recorded (ie, measured) have only been regularly present in the "permit area" since the permit system was implemented. This dramatically increases the likelihood of SAR incidents being recorded in the "permit area" during the postpermit analysis period compared to the prepermit analysis period, particularly for the most common types of SAR incidents found in the study, such as nausea, vomiting, and injuries that might otherwise not require a SAR response or be reported to park officials. Thus, the pre-and postpermit implementation comparison for the "permit area" is fatally flawed; it is analogous to measuring the number of speeding violations on a section of road before and after stationing a patrol car in the area to measure vehicle speeds. Unfortunately, the popular press has taken hold of the study results regarding the number of incidents in the permit area and reported that the Half Dome permit system has not made visitors safer, but rather the opposite. 8
In Reply to Drs Lawson and NewmanTo the Editor:We thank Drs Lawson and Newman for their letter. 1 We recognize your passion for safety. In this response, we address your critique of our work number by number and provide further commentary. To establish a baseline from Letters to the Editor 123