EXCLUSIVE
Wildlife rescue volunteers say they have received death threats for trying to stop Molly the Magpie from being kept with a Queensland couple’s pet Staffordshire terriers.
Molly and her canine companions, Peggy and Ruby, live with Juliette Wells and Reece Mortensen in their Gold Coast home and have become social media stars.
The magpie was removed from the property 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.
Legal firm XD Law & Advocacy has now launched Supreme Court action against Queensland’s Department of Environment, Science and Innovation (DESI) over it granting a wildlife permit to the couple.
The firm is acting on behalf of an unnamed wildlife rescue volunteer who has the support of dozens of other animal carers, many of whom have been viciously targeted by online trolls.
One of the volunteers backing the challenge to DESI allowing Ms Wells and Mr Mortensen to keep Molly wants to tell her side of the story but is afraid to be identified.
‘A lot of carers are getting hammered and bullied – death threats, rape threats – it’s incredible,’ she told Daily Mail .
‘It’s not about this particular bird. The perception of it has been one-sided.
‘Rather than looking at the issue as one of licensing, it’s become about the people who dobbed them in and not about whether it’s right or not.’
Another wildlife carer said when she reacted negatively online to Molly being kept in a house, she was inundated with vile messages including a suggestion to kill herself.
‘I got a lot of death threats,’ she said. ‘One lady said she knew where I lived and she’d be there by the morning.’
A third carer who is not even based in south-east Queensland said her opposition to Molly’s situation had led to a barrage of online insults.
‘You just get called names constantly,’ she said. ‘I’ve been called a c***, I’ve been called a f***wit, I’ve been called an idiot.’
XD Law & Advocacy, which has previously represented YouTube creator Jordan ‘friendlyjordies’ Shanks and defence force whistleblower David McBride, has received an email threat to blow up its offices since taking on the case.
Daily Mail is not suggesting Ms Wells and Mr Mortensen are in any way responsible for the actions of anyone who has abused wildlife workers or made threats against the lawyers.
The first volunteer revealed wildlife rescue groups were now sending carers out in pairs instead of alone after the abuse they had endured.
‘What we do isn’t easy,’ she said through tears. ‘It’s hard work. We work long hours for no money. At the end of the day it’s all wildfire carers being vilified.’
The volunteer said magpies were not suitable pets and suffered when kept in domestic captivity and that Molly – who is actually male – would likely not survive.
That was also DESI’s original position when it first removed Molly from the 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 veterinary advice Molly could never be returned to the wild, meaning he would need to be sent to a sanctuary or euthanised.
Molly and Peggy have 1.3 million followers on Facebook and almost 1 million on Instagram, and the resultant public backlash led to an extraordinary intervention by Premier Steven Miles.
Mr Miles dismissed criticism he had caved in to social media pressure by allowing Ms Wells and Mortensen to keep Molly, and said granting them a permit was the ‘common sense’ approach.
‘I’m not a bird expert but he looks really well and healthy to me,’ Mr Miles said when he visited Molly in the couple’s home.
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 will argue that decision was made on political grounds due to media pressure and sets a precedent for anyone to keep a wild animal.
The wildlife volunteer who said she had received death threats after raising concerns about Molly’s welfare said magpies had to be protected as native wildlife.
If Molly flew away from her current home she would be at risk from attack by dogs she might assume to be friendly, and likely be menaced by other magpies.
‘They’ll kill it,’ she said. ‘Or they’ll drive it out of their territory. It has no coping skills to live in the wild.
‘It can’t socially interact with other animals. It doesn’t have the skill set to thrive.’
The volunteer said Molly would want to raise his own family and not spend his life playing with dogs.
‘If magpies were capable of being pets like rainbow lorikeets or sulphur-crested cockatoos ,they’d be pets,’ she said.
‘We don’t have magpies as pets and there’s a good reason for it.
‘People may think it’s cute. It may be cute from the outside but it’s not cute for that bird.’
According to a post on Molly and Peggy’s Facebook page in May last year, the bird has already had at least one close call with other magpies.
‘A few days ago Molly had a fight with a couple of other magpies,’ the post read. ‘He’s not seriously injured but shaken up.
‘He had a sore leg and blood on the sides of his head and around his neck. He spent a few days resting & sleeping.’
The volunteer said she and other carers were already aware of ‘copycats’ who had decided to take native animals, including magpies, into their homes.
‘It’s been a problem people keeping wildlife for a long time,’ she said.
‘It’s not something you can just Google. It requires training, expertise and knowledge.
‘We’ve seen an uptick in the number of magpies coming in with cut wings and tails.’
Public sympathy for Molly’s handlers had also led to donors deciding they would withhold money wildlife rescue organisations need to keep going.
The wildlife volunteer said while she was concerned about Molly’s circumstances the court action was not directed only at the magpie’s keepers or one particular bird.
‘The issue is DESI making the decision and how they made it,’ she said.
‘It’s about the licensing system, giving people a precedent. People are going to be poaching from the wild.
‘We can no longer say to people it’s illegal for you to take and keep that animal and that is very worrying.
‘I want the system fixed. I’m determined to have this clarified in court so everybody knows where they stand. What’s the criteria for this special exemption?’
DESI would not provide the full list of conditions under which Ms Wells and Mr Mortensen were allowed to keep Molly in their home.
‘The decision to return an n Magpie to a Gold Coast couple was made in accordance with the Nature Conservation Act 1992,’ a departmental spokesman said.
‘We are unable to provide further comment.’
Another volunteer, whose association is not part of the court case, said she was against Molly being kept in a home.
‘As a wildlife carer I am totally against this situation with this magpie being kept in captivity and being allowed to interact with dogs,’ she said.
‘The people involved should never have been allowed to keep a wild bird as they were not even registered carers.’
Mr Mortensen said last week his family was distraught over the new legal challenge to them keeping Molly.
‘Molly’s 100 per cent, and always has been, our focus,’ he told A Current Affair. ‘We just want to just move on and just get on with it.
‘Every time we’re in the public sight and things like that, it raises awareness for people to get out there and try and do something to help wildlife and become involved.
‘That’s what we want to try and do is get as many people involved as we possibly can in helping wildlife, because there aren’t a great deal of wildlife carers out there.’
Ms Wells said: ‘Four years ago yesterday, when we came across a little magpie, who would have thought we’d be standing in front of the Supreme Court here in Brisbane.’
‘Molly’s happy, healthy and alive. Bossy, barking and being Molly.’
Ms Wells and Mortensen, who were contacted for comment, rescued Molly as a chick after he fell from his nest.
The case returns to the Supreme Court later this month.