[somehnacct3757]

The deer themselves are a problem in the northeast. They are greatly overpopulated and eat the native understory, preventing the next generation of trees from growing past adolescence. As the existing trees slowly die, there will be none younger to replace them.

This also clears out the competition to the benefit of non-native plants, which the deer don't eat. Some of these plants are invasive, such as japanese barberry, and render large areas untraversable. Not to mention the bramble is an excellent home for rodents, another major tick carrier.

If you want to reduce ticks, deer are a critical element of their lifecycle.

[giantg2]

The mice are the main component to the lyme lifecycle. There is a researcher working to give mice immunity using crispr.

Generally, the deer are only overpopulating (at least to the extent you describe) in areas that aren't hunted, which also tend to be highly populated. It seems many people enjoy seeing the deer in their backyards and don't want their almost-pets to be killed, especially if it means it might have to be done on their land. How do you propose dealing with that opposition?

[somehnacct3757]

Show them a close-up of a deer's face in an ad campaign, lol. They're covered in ticks, it's like a Ren & Stimpy zoom shot.

You could also get more ppl into gardening. Gardeners end up hating deer after their gardens get raided once or twice.

[technothrasher]

> Generally, the deer are only overpopulating (at least to the extent you describe) in areas that aren't hunted

Central Massachusetts has a very active deer hunting community. I never have any trouble filling my freezer with free venison every fall. But the deer population is still four times the sustainable level as set by the state Wildlife dept and local conservation groups.

Hunting isn't necessarily enough to control the population.

[giantg2]

It depends on a number of factors. Access is a huge one where I'm at. Public lands can be basically hunted out while the deer have moved onto private lands where nobody hunts and created huge herds (30+).

If your area doesn't have the access issue, then I would guess it could be an issue with the number of hunters - if there aren't enough, then they can't harvest the number required to bring down the population (or the limits make it difficult - seems like that's the case the way they handle doe permits). Many states have a program that allows hunters to donate their deer to a food bank through a participating butcher. This can make a big impact in areas that allow more harvests (MD allows 10 doe per year/season without any special permits).

[quesera]

Both small mammal and large mammal hosts are required in the deer tick lifecycle.

White-footed mice are the most common host for the small mammal portion (but there are many options), and deer are the most common host for the large mammal portion.

Deer are easier to count and control than mice/voles/moles/chipmunks/etc.

So controlling deer populations is more likely to be successful in breaking the deer tick lifecycle.

So sayeth a publication from researchers at the University of Connecticut, at least.

I'm sympathetic with the almost-pet Bambi-loving crowd. But Lyme is real and not at all cuddly. Bring back the wolves!

[giantg2]

Coyotes have been introduced in the east in the past. They generally don't kill healthy adult deer (maybe), but they do kill a decent number of fawns. They aren't enough to fully control the population, especially in the suburbs.

The advantage of going after the mice is that they can use crispr to give them immunity. It could be used on deer, but would probably have more push back. Tick tubes have already been shown to be effective at the small mammal level.

It will likely require a combination to control.

[quesera]

Yep, coyotes are not pack hunters in the way that wolves are.

Interestingly, the coyotes in the US East are apparently hybrid "coywolves". They are larger than western coyotes, but still not big enough to take down an adult deer, and they still do not hunt in packs.

If you have a large area to cover, Tick Tubes(tm) can get expensive. You can make your own pretty easily for about 1/20th of the price: toilet paper rolls, cotton balls, and Permethrin diluted to ~3%.

[giantg2]

"Yep, coyotes are not pack hunters in the way that wolves are."

"...but still not big enough to take down an adult deer, and they still do not hunt in packs."

Coyotes will hunt in packs or alone. They generally go for fawns, but they do occasionally take adult deer (there's even video of it).

https://www.pgc.pa.gov/Education/WildlifeNotesIndex/Pages/EC...

https://www.trappermag.com/article-index/deer-predation-coyo...

[quesera]

There is no comparison between the organizational coherence of coyotes (or coywolves) and full wolves.

Wolves are bigger, stronger, and cooperative in larger packs. Coyotes are more opportunistic and ad hoc, and easily scared off.

The net is that wolves have far more success with large prey.

Feral (or wandering) domesticated dogs will sometimes hunt together too, but their coordination is limited. Wolves are impressive creatures.

[gkilmain]

Definitely. I bought tick tubes which target the mice. I've had one on me since putting them out in late April. I think they're working but need more time to test.

[cmrdporcupine]

Eastern red fox populations need to be higher. They're amazing mouse hunters.

[gilbetron]

Don't forget to give part of the blame for the forest woes on worms: https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/the_dirt_about_earthworms

[jf22]

I'm sure deer populations have been higher in the past and the forests survived.

[somehnacct3757]

In my area there are over 120 deer per square mile currently. This number was historically 10, when predators existed. Studies have shown that around 30 deer per square mile is when biodiversity starts to suffer.

I live in the forest and manage my lot with guidance from foresters and nearby park rangers. It may take a hundred years for these current trees to die, but there's nothing to replace them. You can walk the understory and see knee-high trees that can't grow further because the deer prune their leaves.

[bjoli]

120 deer per square mile?!

In thought the moose problem in Sweden was big. That is just ridiculous. We have a moose population that is waaay higher than ever before because we killed most large predators, and the people responsible for keeping the population down (hunters) want a much larger population than is environmentally defensible.

[zz865]

There used to be Wolves and Mountain lions to keep the deer under control.

[giantg2]

There have been times of higher deer population. The population was much higher in PA when my dad was a kid. It currently sits around 30 deer per square mile, which 3 times higher than pre colonial times.

[echelon]

There's nothing unethical with culling an overpopulated species. We do it to deer, wolves, etc. all the time via hunting permits.

As long as wild biology subsists on killing and eating, there's no problem with humans doing the same in order to restore balance.

It also helps to reintroduce natural predators when possible. But in absence of that strategy, humans can do the job too.