Historically, the primary carriers of fleas in our households have been domestic animals. As a result, the biggest blow to flea populations has come from changes in how we perceive pet ownership. There are fewer and fewer freely roaming pets; most cats and dogs are kept indoors or in enclosed yards. This also means fewer opportunities for pets to accidentally pick up fleas.

With general improvements in living standards, places suitable for flea larvae to develop have also steadily been disappearing from our homes. Unlike adult fleas, their wormlike larvae do not feed on blood; they feed on various organic materials, such as food scraps, hair and dead insects. They also need a humid environment to develop.

Such conditions were once provided, for example, by unheated entryways, cracks in the wooden floors of older houses, or even outdoor dog kennels. In modern households, fewer and fewer such places are left.

Also becoming rarer in modern households are alternative host species that could pass fleas along — such as rodents like mice and rats, as well as livestock. Unlike in the past, a diverse array of effective flea preventives help keep household pets flea-free as well. These are often used preventively, and help guard against both fleas and ticks.

All of these factors combined have led to the very low occurrence of fleas today. But could the decline in flea populations be linked to the increase in ticks?

Not at all. While the reasons for the change in flea populations are primarily rooted in changes in human society, the number of ticks, meanwhile, is mainly influenced by populations of their natural hosts. These range from bats and moose to foxes and bears.

It is true that, since nature itself is strongly influenced by human activity, human impact indirectly affects ticks as well. But that is another matter — and one not one related at all to fleas.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!