We respond to the comment by Oliveira-Santos et al. (2013) on the article on the suitability of distance metrics as indexes of home-range size by Püttker et al. (2012). We argue that geometrical relationships between distances and area are not an artifact, but 1st principles that warrant the use of movement distances as indexes for home-range area. Indeed, the simulations provided by Oliveira-Santos et al. corroborate this view. Although we agree that the use of minimum convex polygons (MCPs) based on trapping data as estimates of home-range size requires confirmation, this was beyond the scope of our study, which centered on the relationship of distance and area for a given method (MCP) and field protocol (trapping). Moreover, the analyses of Oliveira-Santos et al. testing the relationship between distance metrics (obtained by trapping) and area (estimated by radiotelemetry) are of limited utility due to confounding factors related to differences in field methods and time interval considered to obtain the 2 estimates (distance and area), and the inadequate size of their trapping grids for estimating movement distances.