Ticks carrying Lyme disease confirmed in 9 national parks

[couscous]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ticks-ca...ational-parks/

Planning a hiking trip in an eastern U.S. national park? Better pack tick repellent -- a new study found these parks are home to ticks that carry Lyme disease. Blacklegged ticks -- also known as deer ticks -- carrying Lyme disease were found in nine national parks: Acadia National Park in Maine; Catoctin Mountain Park and Monocacy National Battlefield in Maryland; Fire Island National Seashore in Long Island, N.Y.; Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania; Rock Creek Park in Washington, D.C., and Manassas National Battlefield Park, Prince William Forest Park and Shenandoah National Park in Virginia. This is the first time researchers have confirmed that the ticks are living at the parks, although it’s long been suspected that the ticks were there because of human Lyme disease infections. “We know Lyme disease is increasing both in numbers of infections and in geographic range in the United States,”...

[egilbe]

Pretty sure this isnt news any more. Wear permethrin treated clothing. I haven't seen a tick on me since I started treating my clothing.

[Hikingjim]

Smoking kills too.
But smoking in tick country with no permethrin is going too far.

[Starchild]

Didn't know that this is news, just assumed that is what it is.

[Abatis1948]

This is worth bringing up again. Many people will start their hike this year and many of them may not know this information.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[iAmKrzys]

Only 9 parks have ticks carrying lyme??? I'm surprised that it's not the case for every park in lower 48...

[Engine]

Did the ticks get a permit? I thought they weren't allowed inside the park boundary.

[Traveler]

Didn't know that this is news, just assumed that is what it is.

Its more confirmation than news. Its long been suspected or even considered a "given" there was Lyme disease in the National Parks, especially in the eastern US, but this is the first broad based study in multiple parks that has confirmed its presence. My guess is this type of scientific research will continue in the NP system to increase visitor awareness of the potential contact risk,

[tdoczi]

Only 9 parks have ticks carrying lyme??? I'm surprised that it's not the case for every park in lower 48...

lyme disease is, more or less, a strictly northeast united states phenomena. why does this surprise you?

[Traveler]

lyme disease is, more or less, a strictly northeast united states phenomena. why does this surprise you?

It used to be certainly, but like most things Lyme has migrated into other areas. High risk of exposure has spread to the upper midwest into Minnesota and Wisconsin with moderate risk across Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio back into the northeast. Lyme has also been found in Pacific states and from Texas east through Florida and north though the risk is low with only a few moderate areas.

[tdoczi]

It used to be certainly, but like most things Lyme has migrated into other areas. High risk of exposure has spread to the upper midwest into Minnesota and Wisconsin with moderate risk across Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio back into the northeast. Lyme has also been found in Pacific states and from Texas east through Florida and north though the risk is low with only a few moderate areas.

key phrase-"more or less"i have no doubt it is on occassion seen elsewhere. i've never heard of it being anywhere near as common anywhere else and certainly not in all lower 48 states. i think statements like "i'm surprised its not in parks in all 48 states" is nothing but the result of/further spreading of the baseless fear mongering that follows lyme around and spreads much faster than the disease itself.

[tdoczi]

still plenty of places where it basically doesn't exist-

https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/tables.html

[Traillium]

I'll add the most-densely populated parts of Ontario and Quebec as being infested with Lyme Disease — and it's spreading northwards at a rate of something like 12km/7miles a year in eastern Ontario.
Few Canadians know this, and even fewer are doing anything about it …
Permethrin, folks, permethrin on clothing …

[tdoczi]

and it's spreading northwards at a rate of something like 12km/7miles a year in eastern Ontario.

any documentation of this? even if the numbers you quote are off? or is this just something you heard from your sister who's friend told her that their next door neighbor's cousin said that she heard at the doctor's office that someone had read..."

[Traveler]

still plenty of places where it basically doesn't exist-

https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/tables.html

Yes, it hasn't made it to many other places that we know of at this point. However no longer is it a strictly Northeastern "phenomenon". Over the years it has expanded to other areas, making a few additional places a high contact hazard like MI and WI. Discount it if you wish, but data is data.

Lyme disease risk map.jpg

[tdoczi]

Yes, it hasn't made it to many other places that we know of at this point. However no longer is it a strictly Northeastern "phenomenon". Over the years it has expanded to other areas, making a few additional places a high contact hazard like MI and WI. Discount it if you wish, but data is data.

Lyme disease risk map.jpg

i'm not discounting anything, the data is the data. i just think hyperbole like "i'm surprised it isn't in all states in the lower 48" is counterproductive. for example, while it wasnt my initial point, it is actually more prevalent in alaska than in a lot of states in the lower 48, a good amount in fact.

also, your contention about the southeast, based on my reading of the data, is overstated by more than a little. there are southeastern states where lyme is still essentially non existent. texas and florida have a large number of cases but are very big states, it is deceiving to point those. the rate of incidence in those areas is very very low.

again, i said "more or less" a problem in the northeast united states. dat that clarifies and makes a more precise picture of that statement is helpful, but i think the data presented hardly refutes that statement. it is largely concentrated, overwhelmingly so, in the northeast, with some significant amounts in somewhat adjacent areas, and rare occurrences elsewhere. the statement "i'm surprised it didn't show up in all 48 states" shows much more of a detachment from the actual data. not engaging in and buying into here say and hyperbole isnt discounting data.

[tdoczi]

Yes, it hasn't made it to many other places that we know of at this point. However no longer is it a strictly Northeastern "phenomenon". Over the years it has expanded to other areas, making a few additional places a high contact hazard like MI and WI. Discount it if you wish, but data is data.



Lyme disease risk map.jpg

i'm not discounting anything, the data is the data. i just think hyperbole like "i'm surprised it isn't in all states in the lower 48" is counterproductive. for example, while it wasnt my initial point, it is actually more prevalent in alaska than in a lot of states in the lower 48, a good amount in fact.

also, your contention about the southeast, based on my reading of the data, is overstated by more than a little. there are southeastern states where lyme is still essentially non existent. texas and florida have a large number of cases but are very big states, it is deceiving to point those. the rate of incidence in those areas is very very low.

again, i said "more or less" a problem in the northeast united states. dat that clarifies and makes a more precise picture of that statement is helpful, but i think the data presented hardly refutes that statement. it is largely concentrated, overwhelmingly so, in the northeast, with some significant amounts in somewhat adjacent areas, and rare occurrences elsewhere. the statement "i'm surprised it didn't show up in all 48 states" shows much more of a detachment from the actual data. not engaging in and buying into here say and hyperbole isnt discounting data.


and really, look at the map you are showing me. it proves my point, not discounts it.

[tdoczi]

sorry about the double post, that was a weird glitch of some sort

[Traveler]

also, your contention about the southeast, based on my reading of the data, is overstated by more than a little. there are southeastern states where lyme is still essentially non existent. texas and florida have a large number of cases but are very big states, it is deceiving to point those. the rate of incidence in those areas is very very low.

again, i said "more or less" a problem in the northeast united states. dat that clarifies and makes a more precise picture of that statement is helpful, but i think the data presented hardly refutes that statement. it is largely concentrated, overwhelmingly so, in the northeast, with some significant amounts in somewhat adjacent areas, and rare occurrences elsewhere. the statement "i'm surprised it didn't show up in all 48 states" shows much more of a detachment from the actual data. not engaging in and buying into here say and hyperbole isnt discounting data.

and really, look at the map you are showing me. it proves my point, not discounts it.

Perhaps I should clarify, I didn't say the Southeast (including TX and FL) had anything other than a low risk, which the map clearly shows low risk in most of the Pacific and Southeastern States, with some moderate areas in the Pacific States. That was what I was referring to.

[Bronk]

Migrating birds carry ticks from northern Canada to South America. Lyme disease has been documented in every state and province in North America. There are several types of ticks that carry diseases, including Lyme. It isn't just deer ticks.