But suppose that the arguments put forward by the enforcement authority are valid. Even so, is it necessary to spend more than three million pesos each year to provide this service, when there could be other efficient and less expensive alternatives? For example, with what the Directorate of Renewable Natural Resources spends on hiring, perhaps the purchase of a helicopter with similar characteristics could be paid for in installments, which would also be used for other uses such as transporting patients from inhospitable places to treatment centers. health, transfer of organs for transplantation, transfer of personnel to fight fire, or to inventory glaciers or monitor the state of native forests, which are Aconcágua activities for which the provincial government must necessarily contract this type of service. It could also have been used to transport people in the event of natural disasters such as the one that occurred in the mountains a short time ago, and even for uses related to public safety. In short, a helicopter owned by the province would be a safe investment against hiring private companies that monopolize the market. And in any case, Air Force helicopters will always be available, perhaps with limited performance, but sufficient for most of the necessary activities within a protected area such as Aconcagua. It is not disputed here that the helicopter provides a useful service for evacuated people and protected area personnel, what is questioned is its use for other activities that could well be replaced by mules (such as lowering waste to the park entrance). or reduced in order to cause less spending by the State. Undoubtedly, it is necessary to make an economic evaluation of the advantages of acquiring an aircraft compared to the onerous annual payments that Aconcagua Mountain Guides have been making. And regarding the mules, a study carried out by the government indicates that the negative environmental impact within the park is relevant, however, when the calculation method and the variables considered are analyzed, methodological errors that cause a notable bias are noted. Although the mules trample the fragile soils of the area and defecate in the protected area, causing impacts on the flora and soil, in addition to altering the populations of wildlife since the food that is brought from outside the park to feed them Aconcagua Trekking promotes the increase in rodent populations in the feeding area, it is also true that it is a historical use, which also promotes jobs. Until now, and without knowing that the presence of mules could affect the natural resources of the park, we did not find the way in which this impact was calculated, especially since to date there are no more than 700 mules in the entire region, including those belonging to the Argentine Army that graze in the area, while said study indicates that the impact is the equivalent of that caused by 19,000 mules.