Put Tick Population Collapse Front And Center

To the editor: Thank you for your story covering the Lone Star ticks on Nantucket. It is alarming that Lone Star ticks have taken hold here so quickly. Having never seen one in person before this spring, I've already been bitten by four Lone Star ticks this year. They are extremely aggressive, fast to bite, and only need minutes to transmit disease. One was so small I could barely see it with my naked eye. With this in mind, I want to bring to light one part of your article that I think is confusing for some of us who have been doing quite a lot of hand-wringing and paying attention to the conversation between Nantucket and the State.

At the Select Board meeting on September 10, 2025, MassWildlife Deer Biologist Martin Feehan walked former board member Malcom McNab through the relationship between deer density and tick populations. Feehan explained that island studies show tick densities begin to collapse only as deer numbers fall toward roughly ten to eleven per square mile, with a full collapse occurring below about seven to eight. You "really have to get in that five to seven range to see collapses in the tick population," he said. He then noted that this is "part of the reason why we don't necessarily talk about the tick piece quite as much," because reaching those densities is "nearly impossible in most scenarios."

I can't help but feel that this doesn't square with the fact that we're an island. We aren’t “most scenarios.” Nantucket has hard boundaries. So explaining to us that we can never reach those densities just doesn't make geographical or physiological sense. The five to seven range that Feehan describes as the threshold for real tick collapse is exactly the kind of target that an island, with coordinated effort, can and should actually pursue.

Your article quotes Feehan saying that reducing deer "won't singlehandedly cause the island's Lone Star tick population to crash." He's right, but to someone who's been following this closely, this message just lands as confusing: collapse is possible only at very low densities, but don't focus on the tick piece because those densities are unreachable. Which is it? We can control ticks with aggressive deer management, or we can’t?

And it isn't only about ticks and the real threat of disease. We have a real food security problem on the island that island organizations have put front and center over the past couple of years. Growing fruit trees, vegetables, berries, apples, and other healthy foods in our own yards, on our porches, and in containers would be a game-changer, but right now it's a privilege reserved for people with the money and land to fence. That’s unfair. Bringing the herd down significantly would level the field for everyone.

There’s a nightmare scenario happening on Martha's Vineyard, and we are most certainly going to suffer the same fate, so why is pursuing tick population collapse not seriously on the table?

I'd urge our media outlets to press officials and state partners to speak to that possibility directly instead of setting it aside as unrealistic. Everywhere else, maybe it is. On Nantucket, it isn't.

Respectfully,
Leah Mojer