As I write this article, it is already mid-June; well into tick season. The Minnesota Department of Health has observed an increase in Emergency Department visits related to tick bites over the past few months. This rise is consistent with the annual increase in tick-borne disease. The scientific name for the deer tick is Ixodes scapularis. It is more commonly referred to as the blacklegged tick and is widely known as the primary vector for transmitting Lyme disease in North America. 

I expect that most of you readers are up to date on the current information to protect yourselves from incursions with these gross, spider-cousin critters but here is a reminder. Carefully tucking pants into boots, long-sleeved shirt tucked into pants when strolling in or near wooded and brushy areas; plus applying insect repellents such as DEET and picaridin remain the best methods of personal protection. Confirm the package has an EPA Reg. number that verifies the product is approved and safe for human use. Conduct close surveillance on your four-legged friends upon returning home. You should examine your body for the ticks who may have chosen you for their blood meal. Make it “fun,” grab a buddy and check each other! That’s not too weird, is it? Launder the clothes you wore and use a hot clothes dryer. While performing these tasks you may wonder - what if there were no ticks.

If there were no ticks in Minnesota, the state’s outdoor lifestyle would be transformed. Minnesotans and their pets could explore the woods and tall grasses without the constant threat of Lyme disease. However, entirely wiping out ticks might cause significant ecological disruptions, as ticks serve as a food source for some birds, amphibians, and reptiles, while also helping keep small mammal populations in check. Though these predators do not eat ticks exclusively, the loss of this food could threaten borderline populations of certain species.

Oh yes, theoretically, there could be major ecosystem impacts. Ticks help control the population of host animals, such as deer and small rodents. Without ticks, these populations could swell rapidly, leading to overgrazing and damage to local flora. Ticks are part of the diet of wild turkeys, guinea fowl and opossums (though not as many as previously reported in Maine). 

But systematically reducing tick abundance is likely to remain the most effective method for preventing tick-borne diseases. Most recent research on reducing tick numbers has focused on the targeted delivery of chemical insecticides to particular hosts. These methods seem promising, but more rigorous tests are needed. Several methods of biocontrol of ticks, including parasitoids and some bird predators, have been shown to reduce tick numbers in some situations. Perhaps the most promising method of biocontrol is the targeted use of fungal pathogens, which has been shown to reduce tick numbers both directly (through mortality) and indirectly (through reductions in fitness). These preliminary successes demonstrate the importance and potential of rigorous research into novel and existing methods of biological control of ticks. [Biosciencemag.org, May 2006 / Vol. 56 No. 5]

While ticks are a nuisance and vectors for severe illnesses (like Lyme disease), they are deeply ingrained in the food web. Ticks act as evolutionary pressures that keep wildlife populations in check. Many scientists still emphasize that eradicating them could do more harm than good by collapsing fragile ecological balances. Instead of eradication, experts focus on managing the risks through practical prevention, vector control, and medical research like tick-borne illness vaccines.

Want to learn more current information? Connect to this CDC Site: 

https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/after-a-tick-bite/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/removing_a_tick.html