White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus Zimmerman), serve as the primary host for the adult blacklegged tick (Ixodes scapularis Say), the vector for Lyme disease, human babesiosis, and human granulocytic anaplasmosis. Our objective was to evaluate the degree of association between deer density, tick abundance, and human cases of Lyme disease in one Connecticut community over a 13-yr period. We surveyed 90-98% of all permanent residents in the community six times from 1995 to 2008 to document resident's exposure to tick-related disease and frequency and abundance of deer observations. After hunts were initiated, number and frequency of deer observations in the community were greatly reduced as were resident-reported cases of Lyme disease. Number of resident-reported cases of Lyme disease per 100 households was strongly correlated to deer density in the community. Reducing deer density to 5.1 deer per square kilometer resulted in a 76% reduction in tick abundance, 70% reduction in the entomological risk index, and 80% reduction in resident-reported cases of Lyme disease in the community from before to after a hunt was initiated.

In the United States, the lone star tick, Amblyomma americanum (L.) (Acari: Ixodidae), is an aggressive southeastern species whose range has reportedly been steadily expanding northward. The number of A. americanum specimens submitted to the Tick Testing Laboratory (TTL) at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station (CAES) increased by 58% from the period of 1996-2006 (n = 488) to 2007-2017 (n = 773), mainly from Fairfield County in the southwestern corner of the state. The greatest numbers of A. americanum submissions to the CAES-TTL were from the City of Norwalk and a few adjacent municipalities. We also report the discovery of a large infestation of adult and nymphal lone star ticks detected on a dead male white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus (Zimmerman) (Artiodactyla: Cervidae), on Manresa Island, Norwalk, in June 2017, indicating a long established, undetected population along the southwestern coast. A sample of nymphal and adult host-seeking A. americanum collected July 2017 from Manresa Island were tested and a proportion were positive for Ehrlichia chaffeensis, Ehrlichia ewingii, and Anaplasma phagocytophilum. The A. americanum tick and its associated disease pathogens are expected to become an increasing public health concern in southern New England.

More communities are experiencing problems associated with overabundant white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations. Public acceptance of approaches for managing deer may differ within communities. Although hunting with firearms is a common practice used to manage deer populations, many suburban communities only allow bowhunting. Our objectives were to assess suburban homeowners and bowhunters acceptance of lethal and nonlethal deer management strategies. Additionally, we wanted to determine homeowner willingness to pay for deer management and how long they would be willing to wait for relief to address conflicts caused by deer overabundance. Most homeowners supported using lethal strategies to reduce and manage deer populations. Most homeowners were unaware of the cost (94%) or effectiveness (92%) of birth control agents to manage free‐ranging deer populations. Of lethal strategies, bowhunting was preferred. Establishment of a special crossbow season outside the existing archery season received the greatest support by bowhunters and was also acceptable to homeowners. As landscapes progressed from rural to more urban, hunting access, human‐wildlife conflicts, and homeowner willingness to pay for deer management decreased. Regardless of management strategy, most homeowners were willing to wait 3‐5 years to achieve a desired reduction in the deer population at no cost to them. As costs increased, homeowner willingness to wait decreased. Because exposure, tolerance of deer, and willingness to pay for management varies by landscapes, towns with diverse landscapes should consider developing regional rather than town‐wide plans to manage overabundant deer populations.

In 2008, two deer hunters in Virginia and Connecticut were infected with a unique strain of pseudocowpox virus, a parapoxvirus. To estimate the prevalence of this virus, and in an attempt to define the reservoir, Parapoxvirus surveillance was undertaken between November 2009 and January 2010. 125 samples from four ruminant species (cows, goat, sheep and white-tailed deer) were collected in Virginia, and nine samples from white-tailed deer were collected in Connecticut. We found no evidence that the parapoxvirus species that infected the deer hunters is circulating among domesticated ruminants or white-tailed deer. However, parapoxvirus DNA of a different parapoxvirus species, bovine papular stomatitis virus (BPSV), was detected in 31 samples obtained from asymptomatic cattle in Virginia. Parapoxvirus DNA-positive cattle originated from the same counties indicating probable transmission among animals. Molecular analysis identified BPSV as the parapoxvirus affecting animals. Asymptomatic parapoxvirus infections in livestock, particularly young animals, may be common, and further investigation will inform our knowledge of virus transmission.

Harvest data often are used to model deer (Odocoileus sp.) population growth and evaluate harvest strategies. Understanding factors that may influence harvest‐reporting rates among methods of data collection is important in assessing the reliability of harvest data. Our objectives were to compare deer harvest‐reporting rates over a 3‐year period between mail‐in archery‐kill report cards (AKRC) and hunter surveys (HS) from the same group of bowhunters, assess the effects of harvest incentive programs, and evaluate factors influencing harvest‐reporting rates. Estimated deer harvest, based on the HS, was almost 2.5 times greater than estimated harvest from AKRC. Of hunters initially classified as unsuccessful because no AKRC were submitted, 61% reported harvesting a deer on the HS. The HS appeared to better reflect actual deer harvest, and AKRC were more representative of actual harvest when harvest incentives were provided. Hunters classified as “less active” reported harvesting more deer on the HS than on AKRC for only 1 of 3 years, while hunters classified as “more active” reported harvesting more deer on the HS than on AKRC for all 3 years. Harvest incentives such as “earn a buck” or “earn a trip” may increase harvest and harvest‐reporting rates. Hunters who spent much time hunting and harvested multiple deer in a season appeared to be more relaxed about reporting harvest on AKRC than hunters who spent less time hunting and harvested fewer deer. We concluded that harvest incentives will increase harvest‐reporting rates, especially in areas with high deer populations, and that caution should be used when evaluating effects of harvest incentive programs.