Rabbits suffered badly from myxomatosis

That apart, disease can cause pain and distress on a large scale, as in the case of myxomatosis in rabbits. And there are other arguments.

The authors write: "The occurrence of disease in wild animal populations has become an important indicator of the health of an ecosystem.

"Monitoring the health of wildlife can be important for the conservation and welfare of wild species and for the protection of the health of domestic animals and people."

Disease outbreaks

They review existing UK monitoring schemes. One is the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme, which covers the investigation of what are thought to be pesticide poisonings.

There are other statutory schemes, including the work of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency and its Scottish and Northern Irish counterparts, but they concentrate mainly on diseases of food animals.

The Environment Agency monitors a range of polluting substances, and the Fish Health Inspectorate investigates disease outbreaks in wild fish.

There are also various non-statutory schemes, run by bodies including the Natural Environment Research Council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and the IoZ and Ufaw themselves.

Casualty records

Species examined by these schemes include marine mammals, red squirrels, common dormice and several cricket species. The Game Conservancy Trust monitors diseases of gamebirds throughout the UK.

Badgers are linked to TB in cattle

The British Wildlife Health Association collects data annually from research workers and veterinary surgeons, while the British Wildlife Rehabilitation Council runs a casualty-recording scheme.

A 1995 review found that only eight of 35 European countries had national schemes for the surveillance of wild animal diseases. The authors briefly review the French scheme, and those operating in the US and Canada.

All, they say, are based on co-operation between institutions and the efficient use of resources.

Continuous monitoring

They write: "In all three countries there is probably a larger commitment from government in terms of per capita funding than in the UK."

But the UK's "fragmented" approach, with limited funding and lacking any central co-ordination, means "the wildlife diseases recorded by existing schemes are probably only a fraction of those diagnosed and a small percentage of the potentially important diseases that occur".

The authors say a co-ordinated UK programme should include "a reactive investigation system for the detection of new or previously unrecognised and/or undiagnosed threats to wildlife health".

They also want "a continuous monitoring scheme . . . to try to find out which disease incidents are due to some extent to man-made changes to the environment".

They conclude: "It is encouraging that the government has recently expressed the intention of supporting a study into the feasibility of establishing and running a centre for wildlife disease, pathology and forensic investigations."