The RSCPA’s explosive, secret report into Molly the Magpie is LEAKED – and the findings about the beloved Instagram-famous bird are damning: ‘Too humanised to fly’

EXCLUSIVE

A leaked copy of an RSPCA veterinary investigation report on Molly the magpie revealed that the bird could not or would not fly further than about 2 meters and could never be released into the wild.

Molly lived with Gold Coast couple Juliette Wells and Reece Mortensen along with their Staffordshire Terrier pets Peggy and Ruby, but those arrangements could soon be over.

The magpie was removed from the house in March when authorities learned Ms Wells and Mr Mortensen did not have a permit to care for native wildlife, but the bird was returned six weeks later after public outcry.

On Monday, a Queensland Supreme Court judge quashed the award of a specialist wildlife carer license to the couple who have turned Molly and her canine companions Peggy and Ruby into social media stars.

In the wake of that decision, Queensland’s Department of Environment, Science and Innovation (DESI) admitted it should not have given Ms Wells and Mr Mortensen the permit.

Daily Mail Australia can reveal that the veterinary director of RSPCA Queensland examined Molly, who is actually male, after the bird was first seized and discovered it could not live in the wild.

The physical evaluation was conducted on March 5 in an “outdoor flight aviary” where Molly initially appeared “bright, alert and responsive.”

“The bird exhibited human-like behavior consistent with the human habit of repeatedly climbing or landing on my shoulder and/or head, despite the availability of multiple perches in the aviary,” the veterinarian wrote.

‘The bird appeared reluctant to fly, but when pressed it was observed to fly short distances, up to two metres, without gaining significant height.

‘While perched, the bird intermittently carried both wings in a lower than normal position.’

The examination found that Molly was ‘in good general body condition with appropriate plumage’, but X-rays revealed abnormalities in some of his wing bones.

“X-ray changes were observed in several bones on both wings,” the vet reported.

‘The cause of these changes was not clear on clinical examination, but may be related to an inappropriate diet as a young bird.’

The vet concluded that Molly, whose fate remained unclear, should not be released into the wild.

“The bird appeared very humanized and did not exhibit behavior consistent with that expected of a normal free-ranging magpie,” he found.

‘The bird was not observed flying over great distances, although it could not be determined whether this was because the bird was unwilling or unable to do so.

X-rays revealed abnormalities in some of Molly’s wing bones. ‘The cause of these changes was not clear on clinical examination, but may be related to an inappropriate diet as a young bird.’

‘Given the behavior exhibited by the bird and the radiographic changes clearly visible, an attempted release of this bird into the wild would not be considered appropriate…’.

Legal action was taken against DESI by XD Law & Advocacy after the department granted Ms Wells and Mr Mortensen a specialist license.

The company acted on behalf of an unnamed wildlife rescue volunteer, who received the support of dozens of other zookeepers, many of whom were targeted by online trolls.

The volunteer who took legal action previously told Daily Mail Australia that magpies were not suitable pets and suffered if kept in domestic captivity, and that Molly – a male – was unlikely to survive.

That was also DESI’s original position when it first removed Molly from Mrs. Wells and Mr. Mortensen’s home.

“It is alleged that the bird was taken from the wild and unlawfully kept without a permit or authorization issued by DESI,” a department spokesperson said at the time.

DESI had independent advice that because Molly could never be returned to the wild, he should be sent to a sanctuary or euthanized.

The public backlash against Molly’s removal from Ms Wells and Mr Mortensen’s home led to an extraordinary intervention from then Queensland Premier Steven Miles.

“The bird appeared reluctant to fly, but when pressed it was observed to fly short distances, up to two meters, without gaining significant height,” the vet reported.

Mr Miles rejected criticism that he had bowed to social media pressure by allowing Ms Wells and Mortensen to keep the bird, saying granting a permit was the “common sense” approach.

DESI granted Ms Wells a license to keep Molly after agreeing to conditions including not profiting from the magpie or its image, undertaking appropriate training and advocating for wildlife.

XD Law & Advocacy argued that the 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 workers being pilloried and abused for standing up for Queensland laws that prevented wild animals from being turned into pets,” says lawyer Jack Vaughan.

‘These are the people who arrive in the middle of the night when you find an injured animal on the side of the road. They do it for nothing. They often also pay for the medicines and food needed.

“They represent the best of Australia, and yet some of them received death threats for suggesting the department’s actions were illegal. We agreed with them and it appears the court does too.”

“The bird appeared very humanized and did not exhibit behavior consistent with that expected of a normal, free-ranging magpie,” the vet found.

Mr Vaughan said DESI had been “given the opportunity to demonstrate that it followed the correct processes and standards in licensing the healthcare provider”.

“To show that it wasn’t just an accommodating nod to a Prime Minister who wanted pictures of himself with a magpie on his head and a few social media influencers,” he added.

“They failed to demonstrate proper reasoning for the permit under their applicable laws.”

The volunteer who took action said she was grateful to the Supreme Court and “proud of all the conservationists who stood up for the law when the department and the former prime minister failed to do so.”

“We’re the ones dealing with the mess of the social media craze of catching baby magpies and training them to do cute tricks,” she said.

‘There’s nothing cute about wings and legs being bitten off by pets. There is nothing cute about seeing a domesticated magpie being ferociously attacked by a wild flock when they first come into contact with each other.

“It was pathetic to see the former Prime Minister encouraging this idiocy in a desperate bid to gain votes and followers on social media.

‘It was a step too far to see the Ministry of the Environment joining the circus and issuing permits.’

Ms Wells and Mr Mortensen released a statement about the court decision via their Instagram accounts on Tuesday evening.

“Thank you so much for the outpouring of support and love as we hit another bump in the road,” they wrote.

‘Some anonymous people have challenged DESI’s decision to grant us a specialist permit so that Molly could return to a family who loves him in the High Court.’

Ms Wells and Mr Mortensen were waiting for DESI’s next move after the ministry said it was reviewing the court’s decision and “currently considering the 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.