EXCLUSIVEMajor breakthrough as Molly's ultimate fate is finally revealed - and someone WON'T be happy
- Molly the Magpie could be taken from carers
- 'Specialised licence' was overturned by court
- READ MORE: Peggy the Staffy and Molly the magpie to get their own TV show
EXCLUSIVE
Molly the Magpie's carers claim they have been told the bird can stay in their custody, despite a judge ruling they should not have been granted a specialised wildlife permit.
The magpie has been living with Gold Coast couple Juliette Wells and Reece Mortensen along with their Staffordshire Terrier pets Peggy and Ruby.
Molly was removed from the home in March when authorities learned that the couple had no permit 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 granting of a specialised wildlife carer's licence to the couple, who have turned Molly and her canine companions into social media stars.
In the wake of that decision, Queensland's Department of Environment, Science and Innovation (DESI) conceded it should not have given Ms Wells and Mr Mortensen the licence.
On Thursday, Ms Wells and Mr Mortensen reassured Molly's fans that the magpie was 'happy, safe and enjoying life, nothing is changing'.
'Legal matters take a long time to resolve, so please we ask you please to NOT email the Department of Environment of Science and Innovation or set up petitions,' they wrote on social media.
'It’s our understanding from talks yesterday that they have absolutely no intention to take Molly from his/our family.'
Molly the Magpie's carers Juliette Wells and Reece Mortensen claim they have been told the bird will stay in their custody despite a judge ruling they should not have been granted a specialised wildlife permit
'We understand you would like to help in some way but just having you all here everyday supporting, commenting & being part of this community is more than enough to keep us going & pushing on. If anything at all changes we will let you know.
'In the meantime let’s focus on the message these besties bring to the world about love, kindness and acceptance.'
DESI confirmed on Thursday night that the Molly would stay with the couple for now as it determines the bird's future.
'Our highest priority continues to be the ongoing welfare of the magpie,' a spokeswoman told Daily Mail Australia.
'We currently have a process underway that will determine the magpie’s future care arrangements.
'Our officers have spoken with the licence applicant and advised the current care arrangement can continue while these processes are underway.'
A spokesman told Daily Mail Australia earlier this week that 'the department is currently reviewing the court decision'.
'In trying to protect the welfare of the bird - which has always been our highest priority - we made an error, and we are currently considering next steps,' he said.
Daily Mail Australia revealed on Wednesday that RSPCA Queensland's wildlife veterinary director examined Molly - who is actually male - after the bird was first seized and found him to be unable to live in the wild.
'The bird seemed reluctant to fly, but when pressed was observed to fly short distances, up to two metres, with no significant height gained when doing so,' the vet reported.
'Whilst perched the bird intermittently carried both wings in a lower-than-normal position.'
The examination found Molly was 'in good general body condition with appropriate plumage' but X-rays detected abnormalities in some of his wing bones.
'Radiographic changes to several bones on both wings were observed,' the vet reported.
'The cause of these changes was not evident on clinical examination but may relate to an inappropriate diet as a juvenile bird.'
The magpie was seized in March after authorities learnt Ms Wells and Mr Mortensen had no permit to care for native wildlife, but the bird was returned six weeks later after a public outcry
The vet concluded Molly, whose fate remained unclear, should not be released into the wild.
Legal action was launched against DESI by XD Law & Advocacy in September after the department granted Ms Wells and Mr Mortensen a specialised licence.
The firm was acting on behalf of an unnamed wildlife rescue volunteer who had the support of dozens of other animal carers, many of whom had been targeted by online trolls over the row.
The volunteer who took court action previously told Daily Mail Australia that magpies were not suitable pets and suffered when kept in domestic captivity and that Molly would likely not survive.
That was also DESI's original position when it first removed Molly from Ms Wells and Mr Mortensen's home.
'It is alleged that the bird was taken from the wild and kept unlawfully, with no permit, licence or authority being issued by DESI,' a departmental spokesman said at the time.
DESI had independent advice that because Molly could never be returned to the wild, he would need to be euthanised or sent to a sanctuary.
Daily Mail Australia revealed on Wednsday that RSPCA Queensland's wildlife veterinary director examined Moll after the bird was first seized and found him to be unable to live in the wild
The public backlash to Molly being removed from Ms Wells and Mr Mortensen led to an extraordinary intervention by Queensland's then premier, Steven Miles.
Mr Miles dismissed criticism he had caved in to social media pressure by allowing Ms Wells and Mortensen to keep the bird, and said granting them a permit was the '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, undertaking the appropriate training and advocating for wildlife.
XD Law & Advocacy argued that decision was made on political grounds due to media pressure and set a precedent for anyone to keep a wild animal.
'We became involved when we saw volunteer wildlife carers being pilloried and abused for sticking up for the laws of Queensland preventing wildlife being turned into pets,' lawyer Jack Vaughan said.
'These are the people who arrive in the middle of the night when you find an injured animal by the road. They do it for nothing. More often than not they pay for the medicines and food needed as well.
'They represent the best of Australia and yet some of them were receiving death threats for suggesting that the department's actions were illegal. We agreed with them and it seems the court does too.'
Mr Vaughan said DESI had been 'given the opportunity to show it followed the proper processes and standards in granting the carer's licence'.
On Thursday, Ms Wells and Mr Mortensen reassured Molly's fans their pet was 'happy, safe and enjoying life, nothing is changing'
Under Queensland law, native wildlife can only be kept and cared for be a licensed carer.
'These qualified professionals have the expertise to give the animal the best chance of recovery and returning to the wild,' a government website states.
'Without this skilled care, wildlife may not recover or lose their natural behaviours that they need to live a healthy life in the wild.
'The law requires anyone who finds sick, injured, or orphaned wildlife to surrender it to a licensed wildlife carer or veterinarian within 72 hours. Fines apply for those that don’t.'
'To show that it was not just giving a compliant nod to a premier who wanted photos of himself with a magpie on his head and a couple of social media influencers,' he added.
'They failed to show proper reasoning for the licence according to their governing legislation.'
The volunteer who took action said she was grateful to the Supreme Court and 'proud of all the wildlife carers who stood up for the law when the department and the former premier failed to do so'.
'We are the ones who deal with the wreckage of the social media fad of capturing baby magpies and training them to do cute tricks,' she said.
'There is nothing cute about wings and legs bitten off by family pets. There is nothing cute about seeing a domesticated magpie ferociously attacked by a wild flock when they first interact.
'To see the former premier encouraging this idiocy in a desperate attempt to gain votes and a social media following was pathetic.
'To see the Department of Environment go along with the circus and start issuing licences was a step too far.'
