Martha’s Vineyard has lived with Lyme disease for decades, and no one disputes that the prevalence is far too high. But the recent push to dramatically increase deer culling as a primary Lyme reduction strategy deserves closer scrutiny. The idea sounds straightforward — fewer deer, fewer ticks — yet the science does not support the assumption that this approach will meaningfully reduce Lyme disease on an Island like ours.

Deer play a role in the tick life cycle, but they are not the reservoir for Lyme. Ticks acquire the Lyme bacterium primarily from white-footed mice, chipmunks and certain birds — not from deer. Unless deer populations are driven to extremely low levels, which is neither practical nor humane, tick populations and infection rates tend to rebound quickly. In many studies, Lyme incidence did not fall at all following increased deer culls; in some cases, the infection prevalence in ticks actually rose as ticks shifted to smaller, more infectious hosts.

Extending the hunting season may appear decisive, but it has real ethical and ecological consequences. Many does are pregnant during the proposed extension period. A prolonged, high-intensity cull disrupts herd structure, stresses the animals and increases deer movement into residential areas — raising the risk of both deer–vehicle collisions and backyard encounters. And ironically, the very people tasked with killing more deer — our hunters — already suffer high rates of Lyme because they spend long hours in tick habitat.

If our community truly wants to reduce Lyme, we should look to the methods that have demonstrated far stronger results. These include rodent-targeted interventions (such as tick tubes), four-poster stations that treat deer with permethrin as they feed, habitat management around homes and trails, and widespread use of permethrin-treated clothing, which reduces tick bites by more than 90 per cent. Promising vaccines for both mice and humans are also on the horizon. These are practical, scalable public-health tools — not ecological blunt instruments.

No one wants to “do nothing.” But we should resist the false comfort of a strategy that is unlikely to succeed and risks doing harm along the way. Martha’s Vineyard deserves an evidence-based, humane approach to Lyme disease — one that addresses the real ecology of ticks rather than relying on assumptions that have not held up under scientific scrutiny.

Carol Berwind

Edgartown