Feeding Deer is Health Hazard

Feeding deer is a health hazard to you and your neighbors. Besides all the damage deer cause to the landscape the number of deer around is directly related to the numbers of deer ticks and the rate of Lyme Disease. Deer are essential in the tick lifecycle and feeding them will concentrate deer and ticks in your area. The rate of Lyme disease in our area is the highest in the nation. Neighbors feeding deer should be aware that their actions are causing high Lyme Disease rates, property damage, a Public Nuisance, as well as auto accidents and they could be held liable in the future.

tourne October 15, 2007 11:44 am | Link

Have you ever seen the statistics regarding how many auto accidents there are because of the deer? How many people die on our highways because of the deer? I have Lymes myself. I don't blame the deer. I blame myself for not covering up. But I agree with what you say.

There was a recent article (I'll try to find it) about the amount of people who are gored by bucks every year. The bucks will attack if provoked. That is something natural and I'm not saying kill all the deer because of that. It is something I never knew. I've chased them myself. I think about it now before I lunge at a buck.

They can be a nuisance to say the least. I enjoy watching the wildlife at our home but there are times in the winter when I will have over 30 deer grazing my lawn. That's ok and it is phenomenal to see. It is when they eat the plants that are getting ready to flower that gets me. There is plenty to eat. Leave my plants alone.

I don't think the government is doing their job in controlling Deer, Bear and the Geese populations. There is such an overabundance it is apparent that someone is dropping the ball. It is not healthy for our children to be running around in fields that are covered in Goose droppings. Have you seen some of the swimming lakes in the area? Shoes are required to walk to the water because of the geese.

Yes they deserve to live in their natural areas but so do we. There needs to be a better balancing act in nature between human and wild animal habitats. As long as we continue to have babies and our life expectancies continue to extend into the 80's, something needs to be adjusted. How about a little sterilization for a few years to break the steady steam of two or three offspring per animal. Residents need to stop feeding the wild animals. It really kills them in the long run.

Doug October 16, 2007 12:20 pm | Link

First of all, there is a HUGE misconception that "Deer Ticks" come from deer. That is not the case at all. The ticks you see clinging to deer are your typical Wood Tick. They are the larger ones you often find crawling on you after walking through fields, etc. The "Deer Tick" is a small tick that is found on mice. You have a far greater chance of getting a Deer Tick on you from a mouse then a deer. Google deer tick and do some research on it.

Next, to keep deer from eating your plants or lawns simply fertilize with Melorginite. This is a fertilizer often used on golf courses (when was the last time you saw deer grazing on a golf course). It is also very good for the plants. It is actually processed sewage and is used in gardens. It can be easily found at Race Farms, Loews, Home Depot, etc. Since using this fertilizer, we never have a problem with deer eating the plants we don't want them to eat. We live back in the woods, we feed the deer in the winter and have NEVER had a problem with ticks nor the deer eating our plants.

The point is that this area is a wooded, rural area. We are surrounded by State Parks, State Land and preserved land. The whole reason many of us have moved here is because of the rustic, rural, wild and natural setting it provides and frankly, some of the last wooded and nice areas of NJ. Anyone who moves here or lives here must understand that they are moving into "nature's area". The bear, deer, geese, raccoon, skunks, bobcat, etc. etc. were all here well before we were. My answer to anyone who lives here or moves here and don't like these animals is to move back to the city where you won't have to worry about them. All too often the answer by people who don't like these animals is to kill them. Remember, you have moved to and are living in THEIR home. Treat them with respect, leave them alone, do a little preventative action around your yards (fertilizing with Melorginite) and we can all live peacefully together.

Scott October 23, 2007 5:29 pm | Link

It is a much more HUGE misconception to say that Deer Ticks do not come from deer. Deer ticks not only feed on deer, the adults breed on deer and then drop off to lay thousands of eggs in the ground, renewing the whole tick lifecycle. DO NOT BE FOOLED BY MISINFORMATION. DEER ARE KEY TO THE DEER TICK LIFECYCLE AND THE NUMBERS OF LYME DISEASE INFECTED TICKS IN THE AREA IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE NUMBER OF DEER. Mice alone do not complete the Deer tick lifecycle...hence the name "Deer" Tick. Furthermore, people who really appreciate nature, leave nature alone! They do not artificially feed them making them dependent on humans and tame nuisances! The fact is most people around here who feed the deer have themselves relocated from the city over the past 15 years or less and seem to think of a deer or bear as some sort of city squirrel that needs to be fed. Feeding deer is banned in many states, including NY where even baiting deer for hunting is illegal. Why? Because feeding deer has been shown to spread a disease similar to mad cow disease. Deer do not normally feed together in large numbers at the same food source, spreading diseases to each other. Animal "rights" activists have a sad idea of what is good for wild animals. They are usually antisocial and have trouble relating to humans. They often substitute wild animals for human companionship. People who say feeding wild animals is a good thing are grossly ignorant of nature and should probably go back to the city from whence THEY no doubt came!

Tick or no Tick....Deer or No Deer ...they were here first....we moved in on them...control population in Deer, Bear etc...control developement in people.....we will get rid of the wildlife and just become the city we had just left...

Scott, thank you for the Melorginite suggestsion. I've read about it and it does seem to work.

Doug October 24, 2007 9:40 am | Link

Sam, as a matter of fact.. We.. that is humans were here first! The deer population 100 years ago was a fraction of what it is today in NJ. It seems that suburbanising, if not citifiying, leads to an increase in the deer population, mainly due to a lack of predators such as mountain lions. The overpopulation of deer is also a result of a much less diverse forest ecosystem. How ironic. WE WERE HERE FIRST!!! I WAS HERE FIRST!!! The deer population increase in my lifetime alone has been tremendous. You would have to shoot 99 out of every 100 deer to get the deer populaton back to what it was before I was here!
Oh, and as far as milorganite goes. If you like spreading manmade, toxic sewage sludge all over your "natural" environment, then go ahead and use it. But I am not sure how it fits in with your save the animals diatribe.

LOL LOL LOL ...we're still citifying...and when I say Deer were here first I meant out here......before it became another bergen county

LOL "It seems that suburbanising, if not citifiying, leads to an increase in the deer population" I guess that is why there are so many deer in NYC. The deer WERE here first. Yes not in the numbers we have now. But look at the human population and how it has grown. Go back in rethink your statement.

By the way I guess you think bear are a problem also. Do you believe they are dangerous? If you think so read this. http://www.bear.org/Black/Articles...lack_Bears.html

Thanks for the great article on the bear. Now if we can only train humans not to leave food in their cars and also stop them from taking the garbage out two days before it is due to be picked up.

Doug October 26, 2007 2:44 pm | Link

No, Fedup, once again, the DEER WERE NOT HERE FIRST. One hundred and fifty years ago, there were very few deer around. As far as the story on black bears, are you suggesting that it somehow suggests that feeding bears is OK? Because that is not what I got from it. It talks about the general nature of black bears to be fearful of humans. This is so. However, bears who have been fed in our area have been known to stand their ground even after having rocks thrown at them. Feeding bears makes them aggressive in seeking food, even if the food is in your kitchen! There has been at least one instance where a "tame" bear has broken into a house for food in the Blairstown area. Your story also talks about how misinterpreting bear behavoir could result in getting "slapped" resulting in "usually ripped clothing and welts on the skin". Oh, that sounds like fun! No, I am not afraid of wild black bears and have even tread alone where grizzlys roam. I DO have respect for bears and feel that humans have no right to try to make them into just another pet. Animal rights folks and others who feed these wildlife like to think they are their defenders. In reality, the feeders are just fullfilling their own desire to somehow control the animal and humanize it for their own edification.

no Bear nor Deer are dangerous ...only thing dangerous out here is the human....

No, Tourne, once again, the DEER WERE HERE FIRST. http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~deer/. 150 years ago the population was down because of over hunting but they were still here first. Show me an article that says different, I would love to see it. No I did not in any way say that feeding bears was ok. Just like it is not good to feed ANY wild animals. You probably decided that I meant that just like you decided someone else said that people were here first. I am not an animals right person, but was just talking about bears because I am so sick of seeing people move here then complain about them. But I know animal rights people feed the animals. They educate people to not feed them. Also it is not MY story, I simple put a link here about the story.

BTW it wasnt suburbanising, if not citifiying, (LOL) that caused the REgrowth in deer population it was something called The Lacey Act that stopped the over hunting. If 100 years ago there werent many deer then why in 1679 did the the first act concerning the exporting of deer hides in New Jersey was established by the General Assembly (Burke et al., 1990) occur, just in case deer might show up? I think you might want to do a LITTLE research before you make stupid comments.

Here is some "research" for you to read. Be sure to read the very last paragraph of http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/Arti.../deerpops.html. Also, see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6835501/. Deer populations were estimated to be only 10 per square mile before European populations arrived in the US. Deer populations are many times that number now. OK fedup, so that is only two sources that contradict your statements. What the heck, here is another one-- http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...99/ai_14795507. And here's another one, from Cornell, http://wildlifecontrol.info/ccewdmp/Public..._factsheet.pdf. The conclusion just about everywhere is that suburbanization, not just the lack of hunting, has led to an overabundance of deer. IT IS REALLY NOT THAT HARD TO FIND MORE ARTICLES SUPPORTING THIS CONCLUSION. The point is the 'who was here first" argument is used too often to cloud the issue and obscure the facts. It's starting to get down to semantics now. I would say that if the ratios of deer to people have increased many fold since European colonization of the US, then the statement that "humans were here first" holds true. Also, let's not get distracted from my first point--FEEDING DEER IS LIKE FEEDING RATS--IT PROMOTES PROPERTY DESTRUCTION AND DISEASE.

Here' s the first link again--http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/Articles/deerpops.html

Let's try once more http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/Arti.../deerpops.html.

And one more time without the period, see http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/Arti...s/deerpops.html

Here's the Cornell paper without the period, see http://wildlifecontrol.info/ccewdmp/Public...r_factsheet.pdf

Not hard to find the articles, just hard to post em.

My point is that you told someone that people were here first. I corrected you and you seemed be a KNOW IT ALL and came back and said No, Fedup, I will say it again. SO i just wanted to prove you wrong WHICH I DID AND WILL DO AGAIN. You even said in your last response "Deer populations were estimated to be only 10 per square mile before European populations" That tells me that DEER were here first. That is the only topic I am concerned with. BTW idiot, the article from MSNBC doesnt contradict my statement. It helps it. Again saying about pre European populations. THAT SAYS THEY WERE HERE FIRST, WHERE IS THE CONTRADICTION? In the first article which you finally got link right, there is NOTHING in there at all that proves your point or disproves what my article says. WOW in your third article it says "probably five times as large as it was when European settlers arrived" again if you used the brain you sit on then you will understand that it says that the deer were here first. WHERE DO YOU COME UP WITH CONTRADICT my story? Thank god you arent teaching our kids. You said "I would say that if the ratios of deer to people have increased many fold since European colonization of the US, then the statement that "humans were here first" holds true", I would say please dont run for office because I dont want someone who cant reason or comprehend what he reads running the government. Wait a second are you George Bush? Well if you will excuse me I have to go, I have to put some feed out for the deer and fill my bird feeders up. Never did it before but you made me want to.

In an earlier comment you said "The deer population increase in my lifetime alone has been tremendous", in my life time I have seen the human population more then DOUBLE from 3 billion to 6.7 Billion. Whats your point?

LOL I just reread the article from MSNBC where you got your 10 per square mile, the article said 10 - 15 per square mile but I guess you wanted to settle for the lower amount to prove your point. QUESTION -- Are you any relation to Pete of Petes counterpoints? You seem to be just like him, use them numbers incorrectly or distort them to prove your point (even if it is wrong).

This argument is absurd, fedup. But since you insist on acting like YOU know what your talking about, I feel the need to respond to your inaccurate statements. "About 10,000 years ago the Paleo-Indian period came to an end. The climate changed and became warmer. The plants and trees changed and became more like what is found in the Kanawha Valley today. Big Game including mammoth and mastodon became extinct and deer became abundant. Archeologists have named this the beginning of the Archaic Period. The Paleo-Indians changed their way of life to take full advantage of the new plants and animals and the warmer climate. They became the Archaic Indians." Read the rest of this at http://cwva.org/area_prehistor...-maslowski.html
Now, anthropologists can also differ on these kind of facts. However, it sure does appear that humans were here before deer.

And please try to be civilized. Accusing me of being George Bush was really hitting below the belt.

After reading the last post you ARE either G. Bush or John Kerry. Bush who doesnt know what he is talking about or Kerry who doesnt know what he is talking about and keeps switching stories.

you people keep listening to the polital games they are teling you to try and "regulate the deer herd" about deer overpopulation ; just in my life time I have seen the deer population so big that 35 years ago you could count over 200 deer in 1 herd which I physically did, to virtually nonexistent while hunting in the last 2 years.naturally the whole state is not the same, but when you hunt in my zone(24) and have to go a full week to kill a deer vs. killing 2 deer any given day of the week, it is obvious the deer are not overpopulated. the deer are overpopulated around houses because you cannot shoot within 400 foot of a dwelling.

don December 12, 2007 2:08 pm | Link