EXCLUSIVE
A leaked copy of an RSPCA veterinary examination report on Molly the Magpie revealed that the bird was unable or unwilling to fly more than about 2m and could never be released into the wild.
Molly has been living with Gold Coast couple Juliette Wells and Reece Mortensen, along with their pet Staffordshire Terriers, Peggy and Ruby, but those arrangements could end soon.
The magpie was removed from the home in March when authorities learned that Wells and Mortensen did not have permission to care for native wildlife, but the bird was returned six weeks later after a public outcry.
On Monday, a Queensland Supreme Court judge overturned the grant of a specialist wildlife keeper license to the couple, who had turned Molly and her canine companions Peggy and Ruby into social media stars.
Following that decision, Queensland’s Department of Environment, Science and Innovation (DESI) admitted it should not have licensed Ms Wells and Mr Mortensen.
Daily Mail Australia can reveal RSPCA Queensland’s wildlife veterinary director examined Molly, who is actually a male, after the bird was first confiscated and found it could not live in the wild.
The physical evaluation took place on March 5 in an “outdoor flight aviary” where, at first glance, Molly appeared to be “bright, alert and responsive.”
“The bird exhibited human behavior consistent with human habituation by repeatedly seeking to climb or land on my shoulder and/or head, despite the availability of multiple perches in the aviary,” the veterinarian wrote.
A veterinary examination of Molly the Magpie revealed that the bird was unable or unwilling to fly more than 2m and could never be released into the wild. Molly has been living with Gold Coast couple Juliette Wells and Reece Mortensen, along with their pet Staffordshire Terriers.
“The bird seemed reluctant to fly, but when pressured it was observed to fly short distances, up to two metres, without gaining significant height in doing so.
“While perched, the bird intermittently carried both wings in a lower position than normal.”
The examination found Molly to be “in good overall body condition with appropriate plumage,” but X-rays detected abnormalities in some of her wing bones.
“Radiographic changes were observed in several bones of both wings,” the veterinarian reported.
“The cause of these changes was not evident on clinical examination, but may be related to an inadequate diet as a juvenile bird.”
The vet concluded that Molly, whose fate was still unclear, should not be released into the wild.
“The bird appeared to be very humanized and did not display behaviors consistent with those expected from a normal magpie in the wild,” he found.
‘The bird was not observed to fly any great distance, although it could not be determined whether this was because it was unwilling or unable to do so.
X-rays detected abnormalities in some of Molly’s wing bones. “The cause of these changes was not evident on clinical examination, but may be related to an inadequate diet as a juvenile bird.”
‘Given the behavior exhibited by the bird and the radiographic changes that were evident, an attempt to return this bird to the wild would not be considered appropriate…’.
XD Law & Advocacy took legal action against DESI after the department granted Ms. Wells and Mr. Mortensen a specialized license.
The firm was acting on behalf of an anonymous wildlife rescue volunteer who was supported by dozens of other animal carers, many of whom had been attacked by online trolls over the dispute.
The volunteer who took legal action previously told Daily Mail Australia that magpies were not suitable pets and suffered when kept in domestic captivity and that Molly, who is a male, was unlikely to survive.
That was also DESI’s original position when she first removed Molly from Mrs. Wells and Mr. Mortensen’s home.
“It is alleged that the bird was taken from the wild and kept illegally, without DESI issuing any permit, license or authority,” a department spokesperson said at the time.
DESI received independent advice that since Molly would never be able to return to the wild, he would need to be sent to a sanctuary or euthanized.
Public reaction to Molly’s expulsion from Ms Wells and Mr Mortensen’s home led to an extraordinary intervention by then Queensland Premier Steven Miles.
“The bird seemed reluctant to fly, but when pressured it was observed to fly short distances, up to two meters, without gaining significant height in doing so,” the veterinarian reported.
Miles dismissed criticism that he had bowed to social media pressure by allowing Wells and Mortensen to keep the bird, saying granting them permission was a “common sense” approach.
DESI granted Ms Wells a permit to keep Molly after they agreed to conditions including not profiting from the magpie or its image, receiving appropriate training and defending wildlife.
XD Law & Advocacy argued that the decision was made for political reasons due to media pressure and set a precedent for anyone to own a wild animal.
“We became involved when we saw volunteer wildlife keepers being ridiculed and abused for upholding Queensland laws that prevent wildlife from becoming pets,” lawyer Jack Vaughan said.
‘These are the people who arrive in the middle of the night when they find an injured animal on the road. They do it for nothing. Most of the time they also pay for necessary medicines and food.
‘They represent the best of Australia and yet some of them were receiving death threats for suggesting the department’s actions were illegal. We agreed with them and it seems the court did too.
“The bird appeared to be very humanized and did not display behaviors consistent with those expected from a normal magpie in the wild,” the veterinarian found.
Vaughan said DESI had been “given the opportunity to demonstrate that it followed appropriate processes and standards in granting the carer licence”.
“To show that this wasn’t just a matter of giving a complacent nod to a prime minister who wanted photos of himself with a magpie on his head and a couple of social media influencers,” he added.
“They did not demonstrate adequate reasoning for the license in accordance with applicable law.”
The volunteer who took action said she was grateful to the Supreme Court and “proud of all the wildlife keepers who stood up for the law when the department and the former prime minister did not.”
“We’re the ones dealing with the remnants of the social media fad of capturing baby magpies and training them to do cute tricks,” he said.
‘There’s nothing cute about wings and paws bitten off by family pets. There’s nothing cute about seeing a tame magpie ferociously attacked by a wild flock when they first interact.
“Seeing the former Prime Minister encouraging this idiocy in a desperate attempt to gain votes and followers on social media was pathetic.
“Seeing the Department of Environment join the circus and start issuing licenses was a step too far.”
Wells and Mortensen issued a statement regarding the court decision via their Instagram account on Tuesday evening.
“Thank you so much for the outpouring of support and love as we face another bump in the road,” they wrote.
“Some anonymous people challenged DESI’s decision in the Supreme Court to grant us a specialized license so Molly could return to a loving family.”
Wells and Mortensen waited for DESI’s next step, after the department said it was reviewing the court’s decision and “currently considering next steps” in the saga.
“In the meantime, let’s live in the moment and enjoy the time we have together and let everything else go,” the couple wrote.