Ticks and common sense?

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
jehovasfitness
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:26 pm

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by jehovasfitness » Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:24 am

fishmonger wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:46 pm
Also get a tick collar for any pets
I'd advise against that. They can burn the skin. Topicals work very well.

In MD this year has been terrible. Picked at least 8 ticks off our one dog, soon as we put the topical on it's been 0 in 2 months.

User avatar
bottlecap
Posts: 5818
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:21 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by bottlecap » Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:29 am

Call_Me_Op wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:13 am
bottlecap wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:20 am
I spent my entire youth in the woods, largely without bug spray. Had a few ticks, but no problems.
I don't know your age, but keep in mind that in most areas, the deer tick problem has gotten exponentially worse in recent years. When I was a kid, Lyme disease didn't really exist outside of a few isolated areas.
That may be true, but I grew up in one of those areas! I never thought about it, but I guess that’s why it doesn’t seem like a new or different threat to me.

fishmonger
Posts: 597
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by fishmonger » Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:30 am

jehovasfitness wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:24 am
fishmonger wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:46 pm
Also get a tick collar for any pets
I'd advise against that. They can burn the skin. Topicals work very well.

In MD this year has been terrible. Picked at least 8 ticks off our one dog, soon as we put the topical on it's been 0 in 2 months.
I've used one the last two years from April-October and have not found a single tick on our lab (and we live in a rural, heavily wooded area). No skin issues to speak of

drawpoker
Posts: 2055
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 6:33 pm
Location: Delmarva

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by drawpoker » Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:46 pm

Pajamas wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:14 pm

.... My understanding is that a negative blood test doesn't mean that Lyme is not present.....treatment is based on symptoms following a tick bite rather than on a positive blood test.
You have it backwards. If the first blood test (assuming the patient has waited the requisite time since the bite) is negative, then the patient does not have Lyme. If that test is positive, however, that still does not mean the patient has Lyme either. A 2nd test, the Western blot, must be done. If that is positive (at least 5 out of 10 bands present) that is a confirmed Lyme diagnosis.

I was diagnosed in 2015. Based on the Western blot results, my doctor informed me I had likely been infected with Lyme for approx. one year.

The scariest part of having Lyme is that there is presently no blood test (unlike with other bacterial infections) that will show if the 30-day course of antibiotic treatment removed all of the bacteria. So, people are left wondering if they will end up with what is known as late-stage, or chronic, Lyme disease.

I began using the tick tubes for my yard 2 years ago when I read up on them and learned the successes Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and NY state had with them. I have definitely noticed a decrease in no. of lymph ticks in spring and early summer so I am sold on the merit of the tick tubes.

Altho they are called "deer ticks" they really should be re-named "mice ticks". The first blood meal the tick consumes is from the white-footed mouse, not a deer. That is why it is so important to put out the tick tubes in early spring around places where mice are known to be.

Call_Me_Op
Posts: 7029
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:57 pm
Location: Milky Way

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by Call_Me_Op » Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:50 pm

drawpoker wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:46 pm
Pajamas wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:14 pm

.... My understanding is that a negative blood test doesn't mean that Lyme is not present.....treatment is based on symptoms following a tick bite rather than on a positive blood test.
You have it backwards. If the first blood test (assuming the patient has waited the requisite time since the bite) is negative, then the patient does not have Lyme. If that test is positive, however, that still does not mean the patient has Lyme either. A 2nd test, the Western blot, must be done. If that is positive (at least 5 out of 10 bands present) that is a confirmed Lyme diagnosis.

I was diagnosed in 2015. Based on the Western blot results, my doctor informed me I had likely been infected with Lyme for approx. one year.

The scariest part of having Lyme is that there is presently no blood test (unlike with other bacterial infections) that will show if the 30-day course of antibiotic treatment removed all of the bacteria. So, people are left wondering if they will end up with what is known as late-stage, or chronic, Lyme disease.

I began using the tick tubes for my yard 2 years ago when I read up on them and learned the successes Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and NY state had with them. I have definitely noticed a decrease in no. of lymph ticks in spring and early summer so I am sold on the merit of the tick tubes.

Altho they are called "deer ticks" they really should be re-named "mice ticks". The first blood meal the tick consumes is from the white-footed mouse, not a deer. That is why it is so important to put out the tick tubes in early spring around places where mice are known to be.
But since hitching a ride on deer is part of their life cycle (to mate and lay eggs), tick populations seem to be very low in areas with few or no deer. So I think you need both deer and mice to have a serious infestation. But to be safe, I assume that all vegetation in endemic areas are possible tick habitats.
Last edited by Call_Me_Op on Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Best regards, -Op | | "In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity." Einstein

drawpoker
Posts: 2055
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 6:33 pm
Location: Delmarva

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by drawpoker » Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:54 pm

Yes. But point is:

With deer, the adult tick carried is very large and easily seen. The lymphs are so tiny that you might not see it in time to remove it before you feel the tell-tale itch and know something is wrong.

Also, much of the mainstream media continues to print bad information about attached ticks. Often you see the warning that ticks have to be attached for at least 24 hours to transmit the bacteria.
Not so! Researchers now know that in some cases it can be as few as 8 or 12 hours. Google it!

capsaicinguy
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 9:00 am

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by capsaicinguy » Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:14 pm

Just adding my .02 as I have grown up in tick country in the upper midwest. First, like everyone said wear long pants/sleeves. Pick a lighter color for your outings so you can see them crawling on you easier and can flick them off before they get to your skin. Tuck in your shirt so they don't crawl right up over your waistband. Consider tucking the bottom of your pants into your socks if you are really worried.

Second, HIGHLY recommend buying a jug of the permethrin concentrate off of amazon and mixing it down to the 0.5% concentration of the Sawyer product. What I do now instead of spraying my clothes is to take either a 5-gallon bucket or a ziplock bag (depending on how many pieces of clothing I'm treating), put the clothes inside and pour a bunch into the bag/bucket and totally wet out the clothing in the permethrin solution. Pull the clothes out, wring them out back into the bucket (can reuse the solution), and hang them to dry on a line. This is a much more even and thorough way to get the clothes coated, the sprays waste a ton and don't get even coverage. Soak your socks, pants and shirts that you plan to use for outdoor rec, one application is typically good for several washes. Spray your shoes down well too.

Last is try to stay on trails if you can. Stop every now and then and do a "tick check" and flick off any crawling on your clothes. At the end of the day take a shower and do another tick-check, check everywhere, get a mirror if you have to..... As stated it takes a while of the tick latched on for the bacteria to be transported, it is not instant so if you have one on you don't panic, just pluck it off and move on. If you notice the bullseye (erythema migrans) rash where you got bitten go to your doc.

Also, if you have pets, make sure they are treated with Frontline or equivalent if they go outside. I've had a lot of ticks transfered onto me or ending up in the house from hunting dogs, so the same goes for furry friends when it comes to tick checks. I always find them basically from the animals "armpit" forward and in the ears, occasionally the belly.

I think the worst part about ticks is once you find one on you, then every time a hair on your arm/elsewhere brushes somewhere you feel like you have more on you. :P

littlebird
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Valley of the Sun, AZ

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by littlebird » Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:19 pm

iceport wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:33 pm
livesoft wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:08 pm
When I was younger, I had many tick bites, but nowadays, I seem to be good at avoiding them.
That's interesting. I grew up in rural western MA, and never encountered a tick in my life until I was in my late 20s... late 1980s early 1990s.
Possibly DDT -which was outlawed in 1972 - was sprayed in your area as mosquito preventative.

littlebird
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Valley of the Sun, AZ

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by littlebird » Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:24 pm

jebmke wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:19 am
Call_Me_Op wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:13 am
bottlecap wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:20 am
I spent my entire youth in the woods, largely without bug spray. Had a few ticks, but no problems.
I don't know your age, but keep in mind that in most areas, the deer tick problem has gotten exponentially worse in recent years. When I was a kid, Lyme disease didn't really exist outside of a few isolated areas.
Same here. Even in the 1980s, it was pretty much confined to New England. Now it is widespread down through the mid-Atlantic and upper midwest. Probably highly correlated with the explosion of white-tailed deer population. In our (rural) area they just can't seem to keep the deer pop under control.
DDT was in wide use prior to 1972 . In my childhood in the 40’s and 50’s, ticks ( and other arthropods and insects) were far less common than they are now, especially in suburban settings

livesoft
Posts: 62699
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:00 pm

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by livesoft » Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:30 pm

capsaicinguy wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:14 pm
Second, HIGHLY recommend buying a jug of the permethrin concentrate off of amazon and mixing it down to the 0.5% concentration of the Sawyer product. What I do now instead of spraying my clothes is to take either a 5-gallon bucket or a ziplock bag (depending on how many pieces of clothing I'm treating), put the clothes inside and pour a bunch into the bag/bucket and totally wet out the clothing in the permethrin solution. Pull the clothes out, wring them out back into the bucket (can reuse the solution), and hang them to dry on a line. This is a much more even and thorough way to get the clothes coated, the sprays waste a ton and don't get even coverage. Soak your socks, pants and shirts that you plan to use for outdoor rec, one application is typically good for several washes. Spray your shoes down well too.
I treated my clothing in a similar way: Place clothing in a permethrin-labelled zipper lock bag, so that I can use the bag again. Don't spill any liquid on the outside of the bag or elsewhere. Add the minimal amount of 0.5% permethrin solution to thoroughly wet the clothing. I don't use an excess though, so that I don't have to wring out the clothes, but can squeeze the bag with the clothes high up in the bag so the liquid is separated below. If I have an excess, then I just treat another pair of socks. I wear rubber gloves when doing all this. As I noted before, I tested that this amount kills ants that crawl on my socks for sure.

I also store my permethrin-treated clothing in a zipper lock bag between uses.

The permethrin is supposed to stick to the cloth material, but it does wash out. I consider it like the old cheap non-covalent dyes that people used. So think about a piece of red clothing that when you wash it, everything else in the washer turns pink and your red clothing gets less red. Now I wonder if one can use a UV light to see any fluorescence change for before treatment and after treatment. Hmmm, I need to get a 7th-grader to do a science fair project. Or maybe a Boglehead can try this quickly and report.

Now while a large jug of concentrated permethrin might be worthwhile to some people, I don't want to have excess sitting in a hot garage or inside the house. So I only buy enough for what I need that season. Permethrin is poisonous to many organisms and I don't want my yard to turn into a toxic waste dump.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.

User avatar
Pajamas
Posts: 6015
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by Pajamas » Fri Aug 03, 2018 2:57 pm

drawpoker wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:46 pm
Pajamas wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:14 pm

.... My understanding is that a negative blood test doesn't mean that Lyme is not present.....treatment is based on symptoms following a tick bite rather than on a positive blood test.
You have it backwards.
I think what I said is correct. A negative blood test doesn't mean that Lyme is not present. The diagnosis and treatment are primarily based on history of tick bite and symptoms, not tests. See here, for instance:

https://www.columbia-lyme.org/diagnosis

What you said is also correct.

Miriam2
Posts: 2281
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:51 am

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by Miriam2 » Fri Aug 03, 2018 4:03 pm

livesoft wrote:
Miriam2 wrote:
livesoft wrote: In the winter, I wear yoga pants, I mean tights with shorts.
Livesoft wears tights with shorts :shock: Any pix for the BH album?
Image

Livesoft - very stylish and suave :D

livesoft
Posts: 62699
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:00 pm

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by livesoft » Fri Aug 03, 2018 4:17 pm

Getting back on topic, my expectation is that ticks will not crawl under my tights. Do y'all think that's right? It seems to me that most women nowadays wear tights for almost anything and everything and most certainly hiking, running, walking, camping because they are so comfortable which I can report is true. So if any women or men have had a tick under their tights, please report. Thanks!
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.

Miriam2
Posts: 2281
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:51 am

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by Miriam2 » Fri Aug 03, 2018 4:28 pm

^^^^^
^^^^^
Edit - stylish, suave and functional :D

User avatar
Pajamas
Posts: 6015
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by Pajamas » Fri Aug 03, 2018 5:05 pm

livesoft wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 4:17 pm
Getting back on topic, my expectation is that ticks will not crawl under my tights. Do y'all think that's right? It seems to me that most women nowadays wear tights for almost anything and everything and most certainly hiking, running, walking, camping because they are so comfortable which I can report is true. So if any women or men have had a tick under their tights, please report. Thanks!
It seems like tights would help but I wouldn't rely on them. Ticks are very small and could enter from the bottom openings or at the waist or through any hole in the tights or crawl up and onto your torso. They might even feed through the tights, not sure about that.

Also, those tights are black so it wouldn't be easy to spot ticks on them, which is why light-colored clothing is often recommended in tick season. They will crawl around until they find a good spot to feed.

Use repellant and check your skin for ticks, regardless. Tights would be an easy way to protect your lower body with repellant.

drawpoker
Posts: 2055
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 6:33 pm
Location: Delmarva

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by drawpoker » Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:33 pm

Pajamas wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 2:57 pm
..... think what I said is correct. A negative blood test doesn't mean that Lyme is not present. The diagnosis and treatment are primarily based on history of tick bite and symptoms, not tests......
A PCP must follow the guidelines set down by the IDSA. Except in a handful of New England states where the state legislatures wisely passed laws protecting the doctors who choose not to follow the outdated IDSA rules. This means, for a patient living in one of those areas, that her insurance must cover whatever testing, or treatment, the doctor ordered. Even if it is contrary to what IDSA says is the accepted standard of care.

For those outside of those states - its a different story. Believe me, as a Lyme victim, I have spent hundreds of hours researching this.

Without running afoul of the rules here on discussing medical matters = the present standard of care followed by the doctors is to wait the requisite 2-3 weeks following tick exposure for the first blood test. If that test is negative, it is presumed the patient does not have the pathogen Borrelia burgdorferi. If the patient is still worried, that initial test may be repeated in a few weeks.
But the doctor cannot order the Western blot test (except in the aforementioned N.E. states that enacted the laws)
without first obtaining a positive on the first one. The IDSA people have determined that while there are indeed "false positives" in Lyme testing there are no false negatives. How they can still take that position remains open to question, and much criticism. (New York state, a few years ago, revoked the license of one well-known lab for having way too many errors with Lyme tests).
This is just one of the many, many reasons why there is so much controversy involved in allowing IDSA to hold so much power over the doctors with this horrible, frightening disease. The rest is far too lengthy to go into here. Although people fear deer ticks, they seldom research just how bleak things are until they actually contract Lyme (or one of the other 7 or so diseases you can get from ticks)

Here's a pleasant thought to leave you with. The spiral-shaped bacteria that causes Lyme disease, Borrelia burgdorferi, is considered to be first cousin to the spiral-shaped bacteria that causes - guess what - syphilis.

Terrific, ain't it.

Carter3
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:51 pm
Location: Western Tennessee

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by Carter3 » Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:03 am

jebmke wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:30 pm
Shallowpockets wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:21 pm
You think that counterclockwise motion is significant? What happens clockwise?
You can do clockwise in the southern hemisphere.
Haaa. Now that's hilarious

gamboolman
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 7:32 am

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by gamboolman » Sat Aug 04, 2018 7:07 am

This is a interesting topic to me as I grew up in East Texas and was in the woods all the time as kid before I turned 18 and went to work full-time in the oilpatch. Thousands of tics and red bugs, skeeter, deer flies, bugs and creepy crawlies.
We killed game and cleaned it without gloves for all the blood, etc. Nicking your fingers while cleaning deer happened..... at least to me on a few occasions. :oops:

Right or wrong we would take a bath at night and any ticks found were just pulled off. :confused

Been covered in seed tics - tiny ones, big starbucks, red bugs by the gazillions, etc. and lots of poison oak and ivy, stinging nettles, etc. And skeeters so bad they would actually suffocate cows by clogging up nostrils (rare but did happen). In the early evenings after dusk the cows would sometimes run to try get relief from the dam skeeters.

I have seen men quit roughnecking in the rice fields along Gulf Coast because the skeeters and bugs was thick at night from the rig lights.

We used to put kerosene on boots and pant legs to help keep them off - that was on the farm and what our parents and grandparents used. This was in 1960's and 70's. I do remember using Off repellent - we used it alot also.

Since working in sub sahara West Africa the last 15+ years as resident working oilfield - we have to take anti malaria meds as the malaria here is deadly to expats who are not semi immune.

As I said, this is interesting to me - perhaps I and the kids I grew up with was just fortunate to not get one of the diseases discussed herein - for that I'm grateful.

gamboolman...

User avatar
iceport
Posts: 3986
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:29 pm

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by iceport » Sat Aug 04, 2018 8:54 am

drawpoker wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:33 pm
Pajamas wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 2:57 pm
..... think what I said is correct. A negative blood test doesn't mean that Lyme is not present. The diagnosis and treatment are primarily based on history of tick bite and symptoms, not tests......
A PCP must follow the guidelines set down by the IDSA. Except in a handful of New England states where the state legislatures wisely passed laws protecting the doctors who choose not to follow the outdated IDSA rules. This means, for a patient living in one of those areas, that her insurance must cover whatever testing, or treatment, the doctor ordered. Even if it is contrary to what IDSA says is the accepted standard of care.

For those outside of those states - its a different story. Believe me, as a Lyme victim, I have spent hundreds of hours researching this.

Without running afoul of the rules here on discussing medical matters = the present standard of care followed by the doctors is to wait the requisite 2-3 weeks following tick exposure for the first blood test. If that test is negative, it is presumed the patient does not have the pathogen Borrelia burgdorferi. If the patient is still worried, that initial test may be repeated in a few weeks.
But the doctor cannot order the Western blot test (except in the aforementioned N.E. states that enacted the laws)
without first obtaining a positive on the first one. The IDSA people have determined that while there are indeed "false positives" in Lyme testing there are no false negatives. How they can still take that position remains open to question, and much criticism. (New York state, a few years ago, revoked the license of one well-known lab for having way too many errors with Lyme tests).
This is just one of the many, many reasons why there is so much controversy involved in allowing IDSA to hold so much power over the doctors with this horrible, frightening disease. The rest is far too lengthy to go into here. Although people fear deer ticks, they seldom research just how bleak things are until they actually contract Lyme (or one of the other 7 or so diseases you can get from ticks)

Here's a pleasant thought to leave you with. The spiral-shaped bacteria that causes Lyme disease, Borrelia burgdorferi, is considered to be first cousin to the spiral-shaped bacteria that causes - guess what - syphilis.

Terrific, ain't it.
Interesting info. In my case, the doctor refusing a prophylactic course of antibiotics many years ago said that had become standard procedure in an effort to slow the development of resistant bacteria. While I strongly support that effort, and rarely (maybe once or twice a decade, on average) take them personally, the potential long term consequences of tick-borne disease seems to warrant the responsible use of antibiotics.

Complication this situation, I've heard that the growing list of diseases transmitted by ticks are not all responsive to the same antibiotics.

My last tick removal at a clinic was accompanied by an optional single high dose of doxycycline, which I opted to take.
"Discipline matters more than allocation.” ─William Bernstein

User avatar
iceport
Posts: 3986
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:29 pm

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by iceport » Sat Aug 04, 2018 9:00 am

Pajamas wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:39 pm
iceport wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:29 pm
A quick search turned up this letter, published without comment or correction in the Journal of Family Practice:

https://www.mdedge.com/sites/default/fi ... etters.pdf
I think that letter might encourage studies of the technique but I would trust it as much as I would any other letter to the editor of any publication and would prefer to stick to proven methods, myself.
I think you're being a little too dismissive of the publication in a medical journal of a letter from health care practitioners. First, the editors of the journal had to make the decision that the technique had merit and was work sharing with readers. Second, they had to decide not to add any qualifications or cautionary notes. This amounts to a tacit approval of the technique, in my humble opinion.
"Discipline matters more than allocation.” ─William Bernstein

retiredjg
Posts: 33831
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:56 pm

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by retiredjg » Sat Aug 04, 2018 9:31 am

iceport wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 8:54 am
Interesting info. In my case, the doctor refusing a prophylactic course of antibiotics many years ago said that had become standard procedure in an effort to slow the development of resistant bacteria. While I strongly support that effort, and rarely (maybe once or twice a decade, on average) take them personally, the potential long term consequences of tick-borne disease seems to warrant the responsible use of antibiotics.
Interesting. My experience (also many years ago) was almost the opposite. Doc wanted to give me antibiotics just based on my symptoms which did not include the diagnostic rash. I didn't want the antibiotics but my research at the time indicated that blood tests would be negative for several weeks (until antibodies developed enough to be measurable) at which point treatment was not as effective. I opted for the antibiotics. :(

No easy answers.

drawpoker
Posts: 2055
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 6:33 pm
Location: Delmarva

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by drawpoker » Sat Aug 04, 2018 2:05 pm

iceport wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 9:00 am

I think you're being a little too dismissive of the publication in a medical journal of a letter from health care practitioners. First, the editors of the journal had to make the decision that the technique had merit and was work sharing with readers. Second, they had to decide not to add any qualifications or cautionary notes......
Well, count me in as dismissing it, too. Not for the soap idea, but the fact they are repeating that faulty information about the "24 - 48 hour" rule for transmission. No doctor should be doing that now, so I have to assume their judgment is faulty in other respects.

The CDC, who are still in the Dark Ages when it comes to Lyme research, even admits there are documented case studies of certain ticks (partially fed) transmitting Lyme in less than 24.

And, guess what, they now know the Powassan virus, a real nasty one that killed a little kid in the Midwest last year, can be transmitted within 15 minutes of attachment.



http://danielcameronmd.com/long-take-in ... e-disease/

User avatar
GoldStar
Posts: 526
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:59 am

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by GoldStar » Sat Aug 04, 2018 9:04 pm

jehovasfitness wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:24 am
fishmonger wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:46 pm
Also get a tick collar for any pets
I'd advise against that. They can burn the skin. Topicals work very well.

In MD this year has been terrible. Picked at least 8 ticks off our one dog, soon as we put the topical on it's been 0 in 2 months.
Second this. I didn't think anyone used collars anymore.
use topicals - we tend to find mostly dead ticks due to the effective topics (occasionally I pick a live one off me that likely came from the dogs - but no big deal really).

drawpoker
Posts: 2055
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 6:33 pm
Location: Delmarva

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by drawpoker » Sat Aug 04, 2018 9:53 pm

GoldStar wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 9:04 pm
Second this. I didn't think anyone used collars anymore.
All of the vets in our area went overboard with the new Seresto collars for cats about 3 years ago. ($50-$55 a pop, but supposedly lasts for 8 months)
They all seem to be SO Sold, big believers, on these damn collars. Recommending them over both Advantage and Revolution (topicals)

I'm skeptical.

jehovasfitness
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:26 pm

Re: Ticks and common sense?

Post by jehovasfitness » Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:49 am

drawpoker wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 9:53 pm
GoldStar wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 9:04 pm
Second this. I didn't think anyone used collars anymore.
All of the vets in our area went overboard with the new Seresto collars for cats about 3 years ago. ($50-$55 a pop, but supposedly lasts for 8 months)
They all seem to be SO Sold, big believers, on these damn collars. Recommending them over both Advantage and Revolution (topicals)

I'm skeptical.
TBH I'm not even a fan of the topicals for safety reasons, but it's so bad this year the benefits outweighed the risks

Post Reply