tick reduction task force
TRANSCRIPT
P a g e | 1
CONFIDENTIAL - 1ST VERY ROUGH DRAFT – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Tick Reduction Task Force
Extended Summary
Peter Jesson PhD (Task Force Leader) Garry Paul (Liaison to the Board of Supervisors) Karen Johnson Alexia McKnight, DVM, DACVR Robert Porter MD Roger Ayscough Phil Wenrich Donna Van Vlack Paul Reussille Elizabeth Huntley
P a g e | 2
ContentsI. Introduction...........................................................................................................................4
II. Conclusions...........................................................................................................................5
A. Incidence...........................................................................................................................5
B. Symptoms..........................................................................................................................5
C. Relationship to Deer Population Density..........................................................................6
D. Deer Overpopulation Issues in addition to Lyme disease.................................................8
E. Deer Population Control...................................................................................................8
1. Program Justification.....................................................................................................8
2. USDA Culling...............................................................................................................8
3. Program Cost (Lower Merion)......................................................................................9
4. Dressing and Donation of the deer meat.......................................................................9
F. Chemical Treatment..........................................................................................................9
1. Case studies of Chemical control of the Tick population...........................................10
2. The 4-Poster Deer Treatment Station..........................................................................11
3. Patents.........................................................................................................................13
4. Cost and Maintenance of Dandux Outdoors Four Post Deer Feeders.........................13
5. Design and Construction of Alternative Feeders........................................................14
6. Chemical Concerns......................................................................................................14
7. Possible Deer Population Growth due to Feeding.......................................................15
G. Financing.........................................................................................................................15
1. CDC.............................................................................................................................15
2. All other Federal Grants..............................................................................................15
3. Pennsylvania Department of Health............................................................................16
4. Miscellaneous..............................................................................................................17
III. Recommendations...............................................................................................................18
A. Ideal Program..................................................................................................................18
1. Deer Population Control..............................................................................................18
2. Chemical Treatment of Deer and Mammals...............................................................18
3. Public Information Bite Prevention Program..............................................................18
4. Grant Proposal - making the overall effort a quality, publishable piece of scientific research..................................................................................................................................19
B. Cost Reduction of the Ideal Program..............................................................................20
P a g e | 3
1. Deer Population Control..............................................................................................20
2. Chemical Treatment of Deer and Mammals...............................................................20
C. General Discussion of Funding.......................................................................................20
IV. Tables..................................................................................................................................21
A. Reported Lyme disease cases by state, 1997-2007.........................................................21
B. Deer-Vehicle Collisions and Road Miles by State..........................................................23
V. Figures................................................................................................................................24
A. Reported Cases of Lyme Disease by Location...............................................................24
B. Reported Cases of Lyme Disease by Year, United States, 1992-2007...........................25
C. Growth in Deer Population in Connecticut 1885 - 2005................................................26
P a g e | 4
I. IntroductionAt the request of the Chadds Ford Township Board of Supervisors, the Civic Association established the Tick Reduction Task Force to research and to propose a program to sharply reduce the deer tick population in our area. The Task Force leader is Peter Jesson; the liaison to the Board is Garry Paul.
Recommended approaches to reducing tick population are of two types: reducing the population of the mammals needed for their survival or chemical treatment of those mammals to kill the ticks they carry.
Additionally we have determined that there is a need for public education in the area of personal and household preventive measure. As part of this effort we have constructed a website (http://the.chaddsfordcivicassn.org/lyme) to provide links to and information on all aspects of the disease including prevention, tick reduction, diagnosis and treatment.
The Lyme Disease Association of Southern Pennsylvania has regular meetings in Kennett Square and an excellent website at http://www.lymepa.org. They also provide a highly informative booklet “Lyme Disease and Associated Tick-Borne Diseases: The Basics” 5th Edition 2007, which can be downloaded from the site. Printed copies can be obtained be emailing the site at [email protected]
A detailed and comprehensive Tick Management Handbook can be found at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/lyme/resources/handbook.pdf
In parallel, we have looked for possible sources of funding for the proposed program.
P a g e | 5
II. ConclusionsLyme disease is a serious public health threat and is the most common insect borne disease in the US. The vast majority of the cases occur in the North East (See Figure A).
A. Overview
There were over 1,460,000 deer-vehicle accidents in the US in 2007 resulting in 223 fatalities. Pennsylvania leads the list of the States with about 100,000 collisions and 9 fatalities. The cost for the US as a whole is estimated at ~$4 billion/year.
Local surveys suggest that ~40% of the local population may have or have had Lyme disease. The cost of treating cases nationwide is in excess of $1 billion annually.
Our Chadds Ford survey shows that there is a high incidence of misdiagnosis resulting in the appearance of long term effects such as severe headaches, arthritis and neurological damage.
There are large scale environmental & private property costs due to destruction of trees and shrubbery. Woodlands can only support 10 to 15 deer per square mile without suffering damage. Without management, deer populations can reach over 100 deer per square mile.
Deer are causing loss of native bird and plant species due to over-browsing. Traffic Collisions can result in injury or death. There were over 1,460,000 deer-vehicle accidents in the US in 2007 resulting in 223 fatalities. Pennsylvania leads the list of the States with about 100,000 collisions and 9 fatalities. The cost for the US as a whole is estimated at ~$4 billion for that one year..
The average cost to society per case of Lyme disease is ~$4,000. There are thought to be ~250,000 cases per year. The annual cost is ~$1 billion.
There are large scale environmental & private property costs due to destruction of trees and shrubbery. Woodlands can only support 10 to 15 deer per square mile without suffering damage. Without management, deer populations can reach over 100 deer per square mile.
Deer are causing loss of native bird and plant species due to over-browsing.
Delaware has 9.0 times the national average per capita incidence; Maryland 5.0 times; New Jersey 4.0 times; Pennsylvania 3.6 times; Chester County 11 times (Delaware County is 4.5 times; it is clear that, although Chadds Ford is in Delaware County, out Township, environmentally, is closer to Southeastern Chester County) .
Chester County has a substantially higher incidence rate than Connecticut (the state with the highest incidence rate – See Table A). The highest concentration of incidences in Chester County is towards the south-eastern end, so it is likely that Chadds Ford has a higher incidence of the disease than Chester County as a whole.
Incidence of the disease is growing rapidly (for cases reported to the CDC, by year, see Figure B). During the last twenty years, the annually reported number of diagnosed cases of Lyme
P a g e | 6
disease has increased 25 times, reaching 23,305 cases in 2005. However, under-reporting is generally believed to be at least ten-fold.
The rising incidence of Lyme disease is due to a number of factors including:
Increased tick abundance Overabundant deer population Increased recognition of the disease Establishment of more residences in wooded areas Increased potential for contact with ticks.
B. Symptoms
The first sign of infection (70-80% of infected persons) is usually a circular rash beginning at the site of a tick bite after a delay of 3-30 days. A distinctive feature of the rash is that it gradually expands over a period of several days, reaching up to 12 inches (30 cm) across. The center of the rash may clear, as it enlarges, resulting in a bull's-eye appearance. Patients also experience symptoms of:
Fatigue, chills, fever, headache, and muscle and joint aches, and swollen lymph nodes. In some cases, these may be the only symptoms of infection.
Untreated, the infection may spread to other parts of the body within a few days to weeks, producing an array of discrete symptoms. These include:
o Loss of muscle tone on one or both sides of the face (called facial or "Bell's palsy).
o Severe headaches and neck stiffness due to meningitis. o Shooting pains that may interfere with sleep.o Heart palpitations and dizziness due to changes in heartbeat, and pain
that moves from joint to joint. Many of these symptoms will resolve, even without treatment.
After several months, approximately 60% of patients with untreated infection will begin to have intermittent bouts of arthritis, with severe joint pain and swelling. Large joints are most often affected, particularly the knees.
In addition, up to 5% of untreated patients may develop chronic neurological complaints months to years after infection. These include shooting pains, numbness or tingling in the hands or feet, and problems with concentration and short term memory.
Most cases of Lyme disease can be cured with antibiotics, especially if treatment is begun early in the course of illness. However, a small percentage of patients with Lyme disease have symptoms that last months to years after treatment with antibiotics. These symptoms can include muscle and joint pains, arthritis, cognitive defects, sleep disturbance, or fatigue. The cause of these symptoms is not known. There is some evidence that they result from an autoimmune
P a g e | 7
response, in which a person's immune system continues to respond even after the infection has been cleared.
C. Relationship to Deer Population Density
Deer are the primary means of Deer Tick dispersal. A close relationship exists between the rising numbers of Lyme cases and the proliferation of deer across the United States. Areas with high rates of Lyme correspond with areas that are highly populated with deer — the Northeast, upper Midwest and the West Coast.
In at least three areas in New England, Lyme disease has been essentially eliminated by reducing the deer populations to low densities.
“Deer population management must serve as the main tool in any long term strategy to reduce human incidences of Lyme disease.” Dr Sam Telford lll, Associate Professor of Infectious Diseases, Tufts University and Visiting Scientist in Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Harvard School of Public Health.
According to Dr Kirby Stafford, an expert on ticks with the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, "Deer are the key to tick abundance. If we could bring deer ticks low enough we could break the cycle between reservoir hosts and ticks. No ticks, no Lyme disease."
Studies show that reducing the deer population to eight per square mile or less is sufficient to prevent most ticks from reproducing and will dramatically reduce the rate of Lyme disease (CT Department of Public Health and Dr Stafford in their joint 2004 publication (Tick Management Handbook))
In Mumford Cove, Connecticut, starting in 2000, the deer population was reduced from 100 per sq mile down to 10.4 per sq mile. The deer have been maintained at that same level of 10 per sq mile for the following 8 years by removing just 10 deer each year. Ms Sue Sutherland who led the effort has had people express surprise that she supported and helped organize the deer control program. She explains to them that she thinks about the entire animal kingdom not just one species. Mumford Cove is now a thriving, diverse ecosystem filled with butterflies, birds, native bees, the rare eastern tiger hummingbird moth and a lush and diverse understory of native plants such as milkweed and fruiting shrubs. She has not seen a tick in 8 years and like all the residents she now uses the trails, bike paths and does her (unfenced) gardening without worry of tick borne illness. Deer are still present and sighted but only at dusk or dawn in the quieter regions away from homes, as they were 30 or so years ago. Lyme case numbers have fallen dramatically to between zero and 2 per year. Similarly the deer population on Great Island, MA was reduced by 97% from 1982 to 1984. Continued maintenance of a density ~6 deer/square mile has reduced tick-borne disease incidence from 35 of 220 people/year to less than 1/year
For thirteen years, Dr. Peter Rand (Maine Medical Center Research Institute) and his team of research associates gathered information on Monhegan Island off the coast of Maine. The island
P a g e | 8
was chosen because it could be controlled (except for birds), and the population of deer and people were contained. Dr. Rand tested all 75 permanent residents on the island; 13% of the residents tested positive for Lyme. Over the course of Dr. Rand’s research, more than 100 deer were eliminated, close to 100% of the population. By the end of the study, 2007, every resident tested negative for Lyme and Lyme was virtually eliminated from the island.
London Britain Township, PA (which already has a “Four Poster” chemical treatment program (vide infra)) is looking into deer population control. At the Board of Supervisors meeting on July 25, 2005 the township heard from experts on the deer population problem.
D. Deer Overpopulation Costs
E. Deer Population Control
The USDA Wildlife Service has been used in many high density deer areas across the North East. In our area, New Bolton and in Lower Merion Township are examples. Donna van Vlack has been in contact with Wendi Freeman, the Association Manager for the Lake Naomi Club in Pocono Pines where they also have also used the USDA program. Alexia McKnight, DVM, DACVR, a member of our Tick Reduction Task Force was on the faculty at New Bolton Center when they contracted with the USDA to cull the deer that were causing so much damage to the agricultural fields.
1. Program Justification
The community of Pocono Pines called in a wildlife consultant (Dave Albright – degree in Environmental Science) to do studies, aerial photography, document the browse lines and forest damage, and to obtain the necessary Permits. The lower the Class of a Township, the harder it is to get permits
The Lake Naomi Club (LNC) also set up an exclosure to demonstrate the damage done by the deer to the forest.
Educating the local residents about why deer population management was needed was important. We have asked for copies of some of the mailings that were made to the LNC community.
2. USDA Culling
Trained experienced sharpshooters. Night vision optics. Noise suppressed rifles.
P a g e | 9
Controlled baited areas. The USDA usually uses large tracts of open space (for example, the Battlefield and the Conservancy) to avoid populated areas. Large property owners at LNC were surveyed to determine willingness to participate in the program.
Nighttime culling only - December to April.
3. Program Cost (Lower Merion)
The USDA - Wildlife Service is a nonprofit agency. Initial survey and subsequent Management Plan: $8,300. Professional Deer culling: Approx. $2,000 per day. Deer processing: $87 per deer. To remove 576 deer the total cost was $125,500. All processed deer will be donated to a local food bank.
4. Dressing and Donation of the deer meat
At LNC the USDA worked in conjunction with "Hunters Share the Harvest" who made the arrangements to get the deer butchered and the meat donated to food lockers for people in need. An alternative would be for us to find volunteers to do dress the deer locally and to provide the meat to our residents or other worthwhile causes, particularly the needy. In Lower Merion all processed deer will be donated to a local food bank. Loaves and Fishes is a possibility in our area.
F. Chemical Treatment
Chemical treatment of White Tailed deer to reduce the deer tick population is a three year process because of the three stages of tick growth. Larva, nymphs then adult ticks.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (ARS), developed passive self-treatment methods for white-tailed deer through both systemic (i.e. ivermectin-treated corn) and topical application technologies to kill ticks feeding on deer. A device termed a ‘4-Poster’ was designed for the application of topical acaricides to prevent the successful feeding of adult ticks. It consists of a feeding station with four paint rollers that hold the pesticide. Deer self-treat since they are forced to brush against the rollers as they feed. The USDA researcher is John Carroll
USDA publication ‘4-poster’ treatment device test on deer in Maryland
Click Here
Because white-tailed deer are the keystone species for adult blacklegged ticks and lone star ticks, the ‘4-Poster’ was evaluated on free-ranging deer in a multi-year project (5 year treatment plus 2 additional years of tick sampling) in the northeastern United States for the control of both tick
P a g e | 10
species at seven 2-square mile sites in 5 states (MD, NJ, NY, CT, RI). Approximately one device was placed per 51 acres, although some minimally used 4-posters were redeployed near heavily used devices to increase host access.
Treatments utilized a 2% oily formulation of Amitraz and reduced blacklegged tick abundance by up to 81% and lone star ticks up to 99.5% after 3 or more years of use.
Similarly, the application of 10% permethrin to a 600-acre fenced population of deer resulted in a 91-100% reduction of larval, nymphal, and adult questing blacklegged ticks at the Goddard Space Flight Center, MD. While usage of the devices by deer was generally high (> 90 to 100%), utilization of the devices by deer can be low or sporadic when alternative food sources are available such as heavy acorn mast.
Maintenance of the feed and topical insecticide through the tick season is labor intensive.
Bait options, other than corn and including salt licks, were considered and tried by USDA, ARS Kerrville. Extra clean corn was the most effective. Several years ago an investigator at USDA BARC tried a variety of other possible deer baits but did not find anything better than corn.
The sheet metal 4-posters used in MD were made in the metal shop at a local prison for the cost of the materials.
For the 4-posters, it was thought best to start with a control tickicide technology (synthetic acaricide) that has proven effective in killing ticks when properly used. Use of biological control agents with 4-posters would be a second generation technology dependent on development of effective materials. Entomopathogenic fungi hold some promise. Some field trials involving treatments of tick habitats with fungi have been done by Novozymes Biologicals, Inc. However, the Novozyme products (Tick Ex G and Tick Ex EC) do not appear to be on the market yet. Last year Novozymes was seeking funding to do a community focused field test. Researchers in NY State are looking for other possible fungi that could be used against ticks. Mat Pound at USDA Knipling-Bushland U. S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory, Kerrville, TX who developed the 4-Poster is versed in permethrin (human and wildlife) safety in terms of 4-Poster use. We have yet to contact him. The Connecticut Tick Management Handbook summarizes the control options well. Even with the synthetic acaricides mentioned in the CT handbook, timing and proper application are crucial to success in controlling deer ticks. The USDA is not sure how effective Neem or garlic oil would be in treating suburban home sites.===============================================================================: I am not sure about EPA’s regulatory control with Neem, but from a practical standpoint, we have tested high concentrations of Neem against ticks and it is not very efficacious. As with numerous other natural products that we have tested, they either are not sufficiently efficacious or long-lasting in nature. Permethrin is an example of a synthetic that is just an improvement on the natural product pyrethrum. With just a few tweaks of the molecule, permethrin is resistant to degradation in sunlight and is much more efficacious. Natural products are not always safe products. The fever tick eradication program was initially based on acaricides made from arsenic which is a natural product, hemlock also is a natural product. –matTick Tackler indicated she'd be interested in lecturing in the area if we wanted to hear more about her company's organic approach to ticks and Lyme. http://www.ticktackler.com/index.html. Her 'zone' is a few hours from Chadds Ford, but she even wondered if somebody in this area was interested in expanding her business here, given our tick problems. So if you know anybody interested in a more organic approach to tick control and interested in opening a business, they could call her.
2/18/08-7/25/09 Chadds Ford Animal Hospital
P a g e | 11
Total tested 597Lyme positive 61Lyme+Anaplasma pos 17Ehrlichia positive 1Anaplasma positive 44
http://www.ehow.com/how_5050873_manage-flea-tick-control-yard.htmlhttp://www.ticktackler.com/index.htmlhttp://homeharvest.com/insectspraysneembased.htmhttp://www.discoverneem.com/neem-for-dogs.htmlhttp://landscaping.about.com/od/pestcontrol/p/neem_oil.htm
Permethrin is the chemical used as a tick repellent on clothing and as an acaricide in some louse and scabies mite treatment products for human use. According to the ‘Tickicide’ label, the acaricide is not to be used less than 100 yards from any home, apartment, playground, or other place children might be present without adult supervision. States may impose more restrictive requirements than the federal label. State pesticide registrations have been obtained in 47 of the 48 contiguous states except for New York, which has strict regulations against feeding deer. Approval requirements or regulations for use by state wildlife officials vary from state to state and use of the device raises some concerns among some state wildlife agencies.
The use of the 4-poster will probably be an important part of a neighborhood or community coordinated program to reduce ticks and the risk of Lyme disease, managed under state use regulations, and combined with some form of a deer management program. Herd reduction is the only way to collectively protect ourselves from tick-borne diseases outside of our own yards, and protect our woodlands and the creatures that depend on a healthy forest for their survival.
The issue of the degree to which the large amount of supplemental food increases the deer population is still being studied. Dale May, director, Wildlife Division, CT DEP, stated, “We are not convinced that the Connecticut 4-poster study adequately assessed the potential increase in deer reproductive rates that could result from the large amount of supplemental feed dispensed under the 4-poster protocol."
1. Case studies of Chemical control of the Tick population.
The USDA had 4-poster sites at Loch Raven (Baltimore Co), Beltsville Agricultural Center in Prince George’s County and Gibson Island (Anne Arundel Co). Gibson Island was the most successful site. The Gibson Island Corporation bought 4-posters after the experimental treatments ended and continues to use them. Our annual tick counts show that numbers of deer ticks and lone star ticks on the island remain at low levels. The papers reporting these results
P a g e | 12
have been accepted by Vector Borne and Zoonotic Diseases. They will published along with the papers from the other USDA Northeast Area-wide Tick Control Project sites in CT, RI, NY and NJ and summary papers (e.g. meta analysis, infection rates of ticks). The USDA researcher is John Carroll ([email protected]
London Britain Township has, for some time, had a township wide deer feeder program on Deer and Lyme disease control. See http://www.londonbritaintownship-pa.gov/ and select Programs tab. For Information contact Janie Schnelle 610.274.8347
More recently London Britain is looking in to deer population control. At the Board of Supervisors meeting on July 25, 2005 the township heard from experts on the deer population problem and possible solutions to the problem in London Britain Township. Township resident Ellis Schmidt is establishing a deer management program on his property and wants others with 20 acres or more to be aware of the possibilities of a deer management program. Bill Hewton from Kennett Townships Deer Management Committee stated basically the township sponsors hunter training sessions and compiles resumes and information about hunters. Landowners are invited to review the hunter's resume and choose the hunters they would like to invite onto their property to hunt during the deer hunting season. To effectively reduce the deer population it will take the cooperation of many landowners and hunters. Hunters and landowners interested in a deer management program should contact the township office. The Township at this time is compiling information on all interested parties and if there is enough interest shown the Deer Management Program will progress.
John Goodall, Brandywine Conservancy at the Laurels has run a project on the Laurels with "deer feeders" ([email protected])
‘4-poster’ treatment device test on deer in Maryland
Click Here
John F. Carroll, Research EntomologistUSDA, ARS, Animal Parasitic Diseases LaboratoryBARC-East, Bldg. 1040, Beltsville, MD 20705Phone: 301-504-9017 Email: [email protected]
2. The 4-Poster Deer Treatment Station THE 4-POSTER DEER TREATMENT BAIT AND FEED STATION IS AVAILABLE EXCLUSIVELY FROM: DANDUX OUTDOORS 3451 ELLICOTT CENTER DRIVE, ELLICOTT CITY, MD 21043EMAIL: [email protected]
DANDUX OUTDOORS: CLICK HERE
SALES REPRESENTATIVE: ANDY 800-933-2638 EX 481
P a g e | 13
CHECK THIS (OUT OF DATE?): The ‘4-Poster’ Deer Treatment Bait Station is licensed to the American Lyme Disease Foundation of Lyme, CT (www.aldf.com) and manufactured by C. R. Daniels, Inc. of Ellicott City, MD (www.crdaniels.com).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has registered an oily 10% permethrin formulation of ready to use tickicide (Y-TEX ‘4-Poster’ Tickicide®, Y-TEX Corporation, Cody, WY) especially for application to deer via the ‘4-Poster Deer Treatment Stations to control
The three important factors for the deer stands are Corn, Location and Maintenance
Corn: The corn must be clean or twice cleaned kernel corn; otherwise the stands run the risk of clogging (Hamorton Woods, Pennsbury, is considering designing their own treatment stations using salt-lick rather than corn).
Location: Squirrels are the main reason for keeping the devices in the open. In the USDA study, which used metal versions of the 4-poster, nearly all the devices were in the woods. The squirrels caused problems with devices located where there were few deer and many squirrels. The problem was the manner in which squirrels eat corn. Squirrels leave a considerable amount of remnants in the troughs, and this fosters blockages of the flow of fresh corn into the troughs.
Alternatively the stands can be located 10 yards away from the tree lines. The deer will come out in the open to feed but they need the security of the trees to run back into quickly for safety. The distance from the woods will prevent squirrels from setting up house in the feeders; squirrels will not stay out in the open long and run the risk of hawks getting them. Squirrels can do great damage to the corn holding tank if given the opportunity. The feeders also need to be in a location where they can be reached by a vehicle because the feed bags are heavy. One deer feeder will cover approximately 60 acres. Chadds Ford is ~5700 acres. We would require ~95 feeders
Maintenance: According to the Manufacturer, the feeders must be maintained twice a month, to refill the corn and re-administer the chemicals. The rollers (which are actually paint rollers) need to be replaced every three months. A manual is provided detailing how to apply the chemicals and how much to apply. The average deer eats 1 to 1 ½ pounds of corn per day.
In the USDA NE Project, each 4-poster was serviced (replenished corn and acaricide, made sure corn flowed into the troughs, did any repairs) once each week, unless it was heavily used in which a 2nd visit was necessary to add corn and insecticide.
Where lone star ticks are not present, the 4-posters only need be operated when adult deer ticks are seeking hosts. In MD (probably the same for our area), the deer tick adults seek hosts from
P a g e | 14
October until weather gets too cold and resumes in the spring, winding down by June. In the winter, adult deer ticks are active if the temperature is about 50 F or above. The USDA started operating their 4-posters in September to get the deer coming to them before the adult ticks become active. The devices were shut down about the 3rd week of December and resumed operation around the last week of February or early March depending on the weather. The devices were shut down again in June. During the winter the devices can be operated on an ad hoc basis to accommodate for warm spells.
Because of state laws we cannot pay an outside agency to maintain the feeders unless they are licensed by the state. However, members of a community or employees of the township do not need to be licensed to maintain these feeders.
The weekly feeder maintenance is needed about half of the year (roughly weekly calendar shown below).
Jan 1-7
FEED FEED FEED FEEDFEED FEED FEED FEEDFEED FEED FEED FEEDFEED FEED FEED
FEED FEED FEEDFEED FEED FEED FEEDFEED FEED FEED Dec 25-31
3. Patents
The Dandux feeders have been developed and patented by the USDA.4-Poster Deer Treatment Bait and Feed StationMechanism for prevention of diurnal feeding from wildlife treatment and feeding device
4. Cost and Maintenance of Dandux Outdoors Four Post Deer Feeders
London Britain Township (LBT) (For a detailed description of LBT’s original proposal see Appendix A)
- Based on the coverage design, LBT required from 25 to 30 "4 poster" deer feeders- Tick population data is collected two times a year ($500/study)- Feeders were purchased and installed by the Township- The Township (Township personnel or contract) maintains the feeders
P a g e | 15
- Feeders will be phased in over a number of years to minimize up front purchase costs. Study assumes the purchase of 10 feeders /yr. for 3 years.
- Feeders installed cost was estimated at $500/each ($400 – initial cost, $100 – assembly, installation, chain, fencing …)
- Cost to maintain a feeder is estimated at $14/unit. Feeders need to be maintained twice a month.
Task Force Team Cost Information (obtained by Karen Johnson)
Each feeder $475.00
3 or more $425.00
Package of 12 rollers (1 year supply) $ 35.00
Applicator gun for chemicals (If the same person is maintaining all Feeders you only need on gun)
$110.00
Tickicide chemical 1 gallon for 1 year $175.00
Warnings signs package of 12 $ 35.00
Corn for feeder 1 year supply approx (Must use clean whole kernel corn)
$500.00
Spring Loaded post holder (this prevents bucks from breaking Feeder)
$ 20.00
Total Start up Cost per feeder $1350.00
5. Design and Construction of Alternative Feeders
The costs of the program are high ~ $130,000 for start-up, then $50,000/year for corn $17,500/year for tickicide, $3,500 for rollers plus any additional maintenance. Although, as with London Britain, the initial capital expense could be stretched over three years.
If we embark on a chemical treatment program, we should look into designing and constructing our own feeders. We should also look into the Hamorton Woods, Pennsbury approach of using salt-licks rather than corn
6. Chemical Concerns
We should carefully research the question of whether there is any chemical hazard to children or others coming into contact with the tickicide.
We should determine if there is a concern of the permethrin finding its way into the Brandywine Creek system.
P a g e | 16
7. Possible Deer Population Growth due to Feeding Until the full results of the USDA Northeast Tick Control Project are published (this year) the issue of the effect of feeders on deer population will persist. There were sites in five states and there was little evidence of increased deer populations over the 5 yr of the study. Only at the Loch Raven site in MD, which had one of the densest deer populations in the state, did annual corn consumption increase. Corn is a good carbohydrate source but is low in proteins and not the kind of supplement that promotes population growth. Furthermore, 4-posters generally are not operated during winter when corn supplements might enhance survival. Except for some bucks during mating season, deer tend remain within their home ranges throughout their lives except under severe conditions (fire, flood, starvation). Unless the deer population (or some other cause) greatly depletes the food supply in their home range they are not likely to migrate. It should also be kept in mind that in many locations deer populations are growing without any supplemental feeding.
G. Financing
1. CDC
The CDC Procurement and Grants Office (PGO) handles all grants and cooperative agreements offered by the agency. The Grant Funding Opportunity Announcements (GFOA) page on the CDC website is: Grant Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/FOAs.htm CDC also welcomes ideas for other projects. Novel project proposals can be submitted to the PGO: Procurement and Grants Office Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2920 Brandywine Road Room 3000 Atlanta, GA 30341-4146 http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/grantmain.htm
We have also contacted the CDCs Division of Vector-Borne Infectious Diseases (DVBID) for their information. CDC-INFO Contact Center. 1-800-CDC-INFO, e-mail [email protected] or visit http://www.cdc.gov. CDC-INFO is a service of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). This service is provided by Vangent, Inc. under contract to CDC and ATSDR.
2. All other Federal Grants.
Grant programs offered by all parts of the Federal government can be found on the Grants.gov website: Grants.gov US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Grants http://www.grants.gov
P a g e | 17
3. Pennsylvania Department of Health
PDH (717) 787-6436www.health.state.pa.us
Rachel E Bungo Legislative AideOffice of Legislative AffairsPennsylvania Department of HealthRoom 806A Health and Welfare Building625 Forster Street Harrisburg, PA 17120-0701www.health.state.pa.us At this time, we do not have any funds available, however I suggest that Professor Jesson review the below information to see if it may help his research efforts in the future. I would also advise that he contact his local universities to see if he may be able to partner with them on his research.I hope this information is helpful. Please contact me if I may be of further assistance.
Funding for health research is made available through either one of two types of health research grants awarded by the Health Research Program (CURE Program) in accordance with the Tobacco Settlement Act, Act 2001-77: (1) formula grants and (2) nonformula funds. (1) Health Research Formula grants are awarded only to hospitals, universities and non-profit organizations that have received three consecutive years of funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The recipients of health research formula funds determine the best use of those funds by their institutions. The recipients of health research formula funds, the amount of funds and the research projects supported by these grants can be found on the Department of Health’s CURE Web site (http://www.health.state.pa.us/cure); see the CURE Awarded Grants link.(2) Health Research Nonformula grants are awarded competitively in response to a Request for Application (RFA) that is issued once a year. Any person or organization in Pennsylvania is eligible to apply for the nonformula health research grants in response to the RFA. The nonformula health research grants fund biomedical, clinical and health services research projects that are consistent with specific research priorities. Once a year, the research priorities for both formula and nonformula grants are reviewed and revised as needed. The research priorities are established by the Department in conjunction with a Health Research Advisory Committee, which is chaired by the Secretary of Health. Prior to establishing the research priorities, the public is invited to provide written testimony on research needs. After the research priorities are established for the year, an RFA is issued to solicit research projects that address the priorities. Typically, the RFA is issued during late summer or early fall. The research priorities for the competitive nonformula health research grants have changed each year. They were: bioinformatics related to cancer or infectious diseases (2001-02); reducing disparities in cardiovascular disease and four types of mental disorders (2002-03); reducing disparities in lung disease and pregnancy outcomes (2003-04); reducing disparities in
P a g e | 18
neurodegenerative disease and tobacco use and cessation (2004-05); reducing disparities related to obesity (2005-06); and reducing disparities related to vaccine development and gene-environment interactions (2006-07); violence prevention and regenerative medicine (2007-08); autism spectrum disorders and antibiotic resistance (2008-09); blindness/visual impairment and cancer vaccines (2009-10). Current and past state fiscal year priorities for both formula-funded and nonformula-funded health research grants are posted on the Department of Health’s CURE Web site (http://www.health.state.pa.us/cure; see CURE Health Research Priorities for a complete description of the priorities). The Health Research Program maintains: (1) a public testimony mailing list of persons who want to receive invitations to submit testimony on health research needs; and (2) an RFA mailing list of persons who want to receive copies of the RFAs electronically when they are released. If you would like to be placed on either or both of these lists (public testimony mailing list or RFA mailing list), please email the following information to [email protected] and indicate on which list(s) your name should be placed:Name Organization Mailing address Email address Telephone number
4. Miscellaneous
Community sponsorship of a feeders to protect selected areas such as housing developments.
Private sales of feeders and maintenance programs. Community fundraisers or corporate sponsorship. Other?
P a g e | 19
III.RecommendationsNo single approach will completely eradicate the tick population.
We believe a concerted multi-pronged program, including reducing the deer population to below 10/square mile, installing deer chemical treatment stations and a robust public education program, could reduce the incidence of Lyme disease in our Township from epidemic proportions to a very low level
We begin by recommending what we consider to be the ideal program, without reference to cost or difficulties of implementation. We will then move to recommendations on how to reduce costs, how to implement the effort and to the possibility of external funding.
A. Ideal Program
1. Public Discussion of Cost - Benefit
Since deer population control is a controversial issue, we need to begin with Public Forums to help the public assess the proposed program from a Cost – Benefit perspective.
There were over 1,460,000 deer-vehicle accidents in the US in 2007 resulting in 223 fatalities. Pennsylvania leads the list of the States with about 100,000 collisions and 9 fatalities. The cost for the US as a whole is estimated at ~$4 billion/year.
Local surveys suggest that ~40% of the local population may have or have had Lyme disease. The cost of treating cases nationwide is in excess of $1 billion annually.
Our Chadds Ford survey shows that there is a high incidence of misdiagnosis resulting in the appearance of long term effects such as severe headaches, arthritis and neurological damage.
There are large scale environmental & private property costs due to destruction of trees and shrubbery. Woodlands can only support 10 to 15 deer per square mile without suffering damage. Without management, deer populations can reach over 100 deer per square mile.
Deer are causing loss of native bird and plant species due to over-browsing.
2. Deer Population Control
We recommend doing the necessary preliminary justification to convince the USDA that we need deer culling in our area.
Assuming this is successfully completed, we recommend hiring the USDA to cull our deer population to below 10 deer/square mile.
P a g e | 20
We recommend distributing the deer meat resulting from the cull to the needy in our area.
3. Chemical Treatment of Deer and Mammals
We recommend the staged introduction of chemical treatment deer feeders across the Township. The simplest approach would be the purchase of the commercial Dandux feeder. Bringing the deer population to <10 square mile (III A. 1.) will substantially decrease the maintenance cost and effort required for the feeder approach
4. Public Information Bite Prevention Program
Although Prevention is not an aspect of Tick Reduction, we believe that a very worthwhile reduction of cases of Lyme disease in our area can be achieved by an initiative in Public Education.
We recommend a broad public information campaign involving informational meetings, literature distribution and emailing to raise public awareness of the many ways that the probability of being bitten by a tick can be substantially reduced.
5. Grant Proposal - making the overall effort a quality, publishable piece of scientific research.
We recommend that efforts be undertaken to draft a comprehensive Research Proposal for use in seeking funding for the overall project. The objective would be to determine to how low a level, using a carefully controlled scientific approach, the tick population density can be driven in an area such as Chadds Ford, using all feasible approaches in parallel. To our knowledge, no investigation of this type has been undertake anywhere in the US.
We recommend forming a team, including people technically qualified in each of the relevant areas and other motivated individuals. If they are agreeable a starting core might be:
Garry Paul (Liaison to the Board of Supervisors) Peter Jesson PhD. Physical Chemistry Ron Hamlen, PhD. LDASEPA VP & Science Advisor Alexia McKnight, DVM, DACVR Robert Porter MD Roger Ayscough Qualified Engineer, Pennsylvania Donna van Vlack
We would need a number of dedicated individuals willing to undertake the labor and
monitoring required.
P a g e | 21
We should try to involve Universities, Government Agencies, and other organizations such as the Lyme Disease Association of South Eastern Pennsylvania, if possible.
We should try to get funding for the research effort.
A quality research effort would include the following:
Determination of the current deer population density in our area and tracking it annually after the start of the program (we might be able to do ariel surveys with a private plane)
Determination of the current tick population density in our area and tracking it bi-annually after the start of the program
Determination of the current annual number of Lyme cases in our area and tracking it annually after the start of the program
Careful monitoring of each of the individual approaches to tick reduction that are put in place to insure quality implementation (preferably coordinated by an expert in that area)
B. Cost Reduction of the Ideal Program
1. Deer Population Control
We may be able to do aerial surveys ourselves and perhaps other aspects of the USDA justification process.
Although we do not recommend this, we could seek deer permits from the State to allow local expert hunters to do the culling.
We could use local volunteers to dress and distribute the deer meat resulting from the cull to the needy in our area.
2. Chemical Treatment of Deer and Mammals
It may be possible to design and construct our own deer feeders. We should examine the possibility of using salt licks instead of corn. We may be able to do our own tick population measurements.
C. General Discussion of Funding
We recommend seeking all approaches to funding that we can identify.
P a g e | 22
CDC All other Federal Grants. Pennsylvania Department of Health Miscellaneous Community sponsorship of a feeder to protect selected areas such as housing
developments. Private sales of feeders and maintenance programs. Community fundraisers or corporate sponsorship. Other?
IV. TablesA. Reported Lyme disease cases by state, 1997-
2007
State 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 In*
Alab 11 24 20 6 10 11 8 6 3 11 13 0.3
Alas 2 1 0 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 10 1.5
Ariz 4 1 3 2 3 4 4 13 10 10 2 0.0
Arka 27 8 7 7 4 3 0 0 0 0 1 0.0
Cali 154 135 139 96 95 97 86 48 95 85 75 0.2
Col 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Conn 2297 3434 3215 3773 3597 4631 1403 1348 1810 1788 3058 87.3
Dela 109 77 167 167 152 194 212 339 646 482 715 82.7
DC 10 8 6 11 17 25 14 16 10 62 116 19.7
Flor 56 71 59 54 43 79 43 46 47 34 30 0.2
Geor 9 5 0 0 0 2 10 12 6 8 11 0.1
Hawa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Idah 4 7 3 4 5 4 3 6 2 7 9 0.6
Illi 13 14 17 35 32 47 71 87 127 110 149 1.2
Indi 33 39 21 23 26 21 25 32 33 26 55 0.9
Iowa 8 27 24 34 36 42 58 49 89 97 123 4.1
P a g e | 23
Kans 4 13 16 17 2 7 4 3 3 4 8 0.3
Kent 20 27 19 13 23 25 17 15 5 7 6 0.1
Loui 13 15 9 8 8 5 7 2 3 1 2 0.0
Main 34 78 41 71 108 219 175 225 247 338 529 40.2
Mary 494 659 899 688 608 738 691 891 1235 1248 2576 45.8
Mass 291 699 787 1158 1164 1807 1532 1532 2336 1432 2988 46.3
Mich 27 17 11 23 21 26 12 27 62 55 51 0.5
Minn 256 261 283 465 461 867 474 1023 917 914 1238 23.8
Missi 27 17 4 3 8 12 21 0 0 3 1 0.0
Misso 28 12 72 47 37 41 70 25 15 5 10 0.2
Mont 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0.4
Nebr 2 4 11 5 4 6 2 2 2 11 7 0.4
Nev 2 6 2 4 4 2 3 1 3 4 15 0.6
NewH 39 45 27 84 129 261 190 226 265 617 896 68.1
NewJ 2041 1911 1719 2459 2020 2349 2887 2698 3363 2432 3134 36.1
NewM 1 4 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 3 5 0.3
NewY 3327 4640 4402 4329 4083 5535 5399 5100 5565 4460 4165 21.6
NCal 34 63 74 47 41 137 156 122 49 31 53 0.6
NDak 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 3 7 12 1.9
Ohio 40 47 47 61 44 82 66 50 58 43 33 0.3
Okla 45 13 8 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0.0
Oregon 20 21 15 13 15 12 16 11 3 7 6 0.2
Penn 2188 2760 2781 2343 2806 3989 5730 3985 4287 3242 3994 32.1
RhIl 442 789 546 675 510 852 736 249 39 308 177 16.7
SCar 3 8 6 25 6 26 18 22 15 20 31 0.7
SDak 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 0 0.0
Tenn 45 47 59 28 31 28 20 20 8 15 31 0.5
Texa 60 32 72 77 75 139 85 98 69 29 87 0.4
Utah 1 0 2 3 1 5 2 1 2 5 7 0.3
Verm 8 11 26 40 18 37 43 50 54 105 138 22.2
Virg 67 73 122 149 156 259 195 216 274 357 959 12.4
Wash 11 7 14 9 9 11 7 14 13 8 12 0.2
WVir 10 13 20 35 16 26 31 38 61 28 84 4.6
Wisc 480 657 490 631 597 1090 740 1144 1459 1466 1814 32.4
Wyom 3 1 3 3 1 2 2 4 3 1 3 0.6
U.S. A. 12,801 16,801 16,273 17,730 17,029 23,763 21,273 19,804 23,305 19,931 27,444 9.1
P a g e | 24
B. Deer-Vehicle Collisions and Road Miles by State
Note: States are ranked in the chart by average annualnumber of DVCs, from most to least (Source: State Farm Insurance)
00 -0 00 -0
Average Annual Average Public Average STATE DVCs Road Miles DVC/Road
Mile
PENNSYLVANIA 98,937 120,503 0.82
MICHIGAN 93,072 122,022 0.76 NEW YORK 60,751 113,457 0.54 OHIO 56,588 124,500 0.45 ILLINOIS 47,380 138,580 0.34 WISCONSIN 45,384 113,508 0.40 VIRGINIA 41,819 71,423 0.59 GEORGIA 39,486 116,718 0.34 NORTH CAROLINA 35,314 102,424 0.34 TEXAS 33,488 302,778 0.11 INDIANA 32,748 94,764 0.35 MINNESOTA 30,790 132,000 0.23 IOWA 28,934 113,693 0.25 MISSOURI 27,474 125,279 0.22 MARYLAND 25,031 30,818 0.81 NEW JERSEY 24,697 38,046 0.65 WEST VIRGINIA 23,772 37,007 0.64 ALABAMA 20,555 95,099 0.22 SOUTH CAROLINA 19,792 66,228 0.30 CALIFORNIA 19,583 169,286 0.12 TENNESSEE 17,888 89,061 0.20 KENTUCKY 16,465 77,692 0.21 ARKANSAS 15,160 98,573 0.15 MISSISSIPPI 11,201 74,079 0.15 FLORIDA 10,555 120,062 0.09 WASHINGTON 9,232 82,260 0.11 COLORADO 9,155 86,956 0.11 OREGON 9,105 65,749 0.14 LOUISIANA 9,089 60,935 0.15 CONNECTICUT 9,016 21,117 0.43 KANSAS 8,910 135,132 0.07 NEBRASKA 8,396 93,231 0.09 MONTANA 7,763 69,436 0.11 OKLAHOMA 7,165 112,691 0.06 SOUTH DAKOTA 7,076 83,689 0.08 NORTH DAKOTA 5,807 86,736 0.07 UTAH 5,176 42,902 0.12 MASSACHUSETTS 4,750 35,683 0.13 MAINE 4,064 22,735 0.18 IDAHO 3,665 46,972 0.08 DELAWARE 3,237 5,969 0.54 WYOMING 3,029 27,549 0.11 NEW HAMPSHIRE 2,705 15,582 0.17 VERMONT 2,573 14,353 0.18 ARIZONA 2,202 58,148 0.04 NEW MEXICO 1,841 63,275 0.03 RHODE ISLAND 1,297 6,344 0.20 ALASKA 952 14,206 0.07 NEVADA 901 34,358 0.03 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
280 1,518 0.18
HAWAII 48 4,312 0.01
P a g e | 25
P a g e | 26
V. Figures
A. Reported Cases of Lyme Disease by Location
P a g e | 27
B. Reported Cases of Lyme Disease by Year, United States, 1992-2007
In 2007, 27,444 cases of Lyme disease were reported yielding a national average of 9.1 cases per 100,000 persons. In the ten states where Lyme disease is most common, the average was 34.7 cases per 100,000 persons.
P a g e | 28
C. Growth in Deer Population in Connecticut 1885 - 2005