Would killing all ticks be bad?

Killing all ticks would have both benefits and ecological consequences, so it would be both good and bad depending on perspective. Benefits of killing all ticks would be major reduction in tick-borne diseases that affect humans and animals, such as Lyme disease, anaplasmosis, babesiosis, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and others that cause serious illness and are increasing due to climate change and expanding tick ranges, so eliminating ticks could prevent millions of infections worldwide and reduce need for pesticides and medical costs. However, ecologically, killing all ticks would be bad because ticks play roles in ecosystems, they are food source for some birds, reptiles, amphibians, and insects like chickens, guinea fowl, and some beetles that eat ticks, and they help regulate host populations like deer and rodents by parasitism, though they are not keystone species. Removing them could disrupt food webs, though impact might be limited because predators are not highly dependent on ticks. More importantly, total eradication is nearly impossible due to vast populations, wide distribution, and many species, and attempts using broad insecticides would harm beneficial insects and environment. Targeted control of ticks in human populated areas using habitat management, host treatment, and vaccines is preferable to complete eradication. So while killing all ticks would reduce disease, it would have ecological side effects and is not feasible, so integrated management is better than total elimination.