Jump to content

Molly The Magpie Surrendered to Wildlife Authorities. ABC News 27/3/24


Deeds
 Share

Recommended Posts

To my knowledge Molly was happy and healthy in his (Molly is a male) chosen home, so why the urgency to take him away and subject him to a life in a captive cage for the rest of his life? All for what?

 

The owner of Peggy and Molly had gotten a license to keep Molly, but still that wasn't enough?

 

All because some "wildlife carers" decided that they knew better and hounded the department until they had no choice... grrr!

 

Where is the positive welfare outcome here? He can't be released to the wild according to the "experts", but had been happily integrating with the wild magpies at his home, only coming back to be with Peggy and the family at irregular intervals. Now he will be confined to a caged environment with limited area to explore or choice to be with his local mates (and human/dog family)... it sucks!

 

Molly had a life that most magpies would dream of having... humans happy to attend to his every need, sweet tempered dogs to cuddle up to and chase about, and the freedom to come and go as he pleased. I ask again, what "better" welfare outcome will be provided for him now?

 

T.

Edited by tdierikx
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now he will be living in a cage forever, without the only family he's ever known. :( I truly hope he makes new friends.

 

I can see the thinking behind seizing him, it's law and legislation. Wildlife should be wild. Bad example to others. All that is true.

Same as when we get upset that people keep stray pets they find without following proper procedure.  

 

Although, from what I've seen on social media, lots of people have wildlife they let into their home and they are free to come and go also. Why are these people being made an example of?    

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Powerlegs said:

Same as when we get upset that people keep stray pets they find without following proper procedure.

 

Oh dog, don't get me started on the "hero rescuers" that yell at people to not take strays to the pounds or RSPCA. Watching these people then scramble to "find room" to take on any stray cat that looks even vaguely like a purebred (and most obviously someone's actual pet), while ignoring the average tabby moggie en masse... grrr!

 

Quite frankly I have no objection to anyone sharing their lives with a wild animal, if the arrangement is not detrimental to any of the participants, which is the case with Molly and his family.

 

DESI have the power to grant a license to Molly's family and to return him to the life he knows and loves... just sayin'... Molly DOESN'T have to be caged for the rest of his life just to prove some point.

 

T.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank dog for someone showing some common sense rather than dogged adherence to stupid legislation. This was the only solution to providing the best welfare outcome for Molly.

 

And shame on the people who doggedly pursued having him taken away from the only safe place he's ever known.

 

I certainly do not advocate that people look to taking on native wildlife as "pets", but in cases where it has happened as a result of humans caring for a sick/injured animal, and that animal has decided of it's own free will to stick around, then there needs to be some process in place that looks for the best welfare outcome for that animal, regardless of what strict legislation advises. In this case, letting Molly stay where he feels safe, and his needs are being met, is the best welfare outcome.

 

T.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact remains @Powerlegsthat Molly has successfully transitioned to being free ranging with the local wild bird population now, but still comes "home" at intervals to hang out with his family and get himself extra food and interspecies friendship. I have no doubt that Molly's journey has been significantly different to a naturally raised wild bird, but do not doubt that this family have had his welfare at heart. He is happy and healthy and chooses where and when he will interact with either the wild population, or his adopted family.

 

Magpies are smart birds, and there are numerous (read myriad) stories of them choosing to have relationships with humans and other animals throughout history... this is just another one of those stories, but with the advent of social media, it can and has been shared much further than such relationships have been in past eras. Raising money to get themselves some stability in a rent to buy property so that Molly could establish his connections to the wild population, but still providing safe haven when he chooses it is not beyond the scope here IMHO.

 

As for the book and calendar(s)... why not? It's a beautiful story and a beautiful relationship that this family is sharing with Molly. It's hardly providing a livable income for them either.

 

T.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Powerlegs said:

I just had a look today after the wildlife people called it clickbait. 


Calendar, book and GFM https://www.gofundme.com/f/peggy-and-molly-interspecies-friendship?

https://www.facebook.com/peggyandmolly/videos/660238976117619/

Makes it a lot less wholesome for me. 


 

I haven't checked out the links but the people have come out that they did not start any go fund me stuff and not to donate. I saw it on Twitter.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I haven’t followed this closely. Perhaps/probably they should be penalised in some way for taking him in in the first place rather than calling wildlife folk? Maybe part of any money they make should go to wildlife rescue. And I’d hate to see the publicity and social media encourage others to do the same, I think that is a real concern. 

But taking the bird now feels like a poor welfare decision for the bird. If it can’t be released why not leave it where it is and advise on how to maximise its welfare in situ. It feels like taking it is to punish the humans but not so good for the bird :shrug:, particularly if it comes and goes now at its own choosing. 
 

 

Edited by Diva
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Powerlegs said:

Ok but tell me people, is it against the law to keep a native animal without a permit?

 

Yes... you need a permit to keep native wildlife... and only certain species can be kept under a permit. Most permits relate to certain species of birds or reptiles only - native mammals/marsupials cannot be kept. Wildlife rehabilitators have a different type of permit, as their holding of native animals is supposed to be only temporary.

 

As for wildlife rehabilitators taking orphaned baby mammals/marsupials to raise and eventually release to the wild, the harsh reality is that most of those animals don't actually survive very long once released... but what the heck, they sure make for great photos to use for fundraising, don't they?

 

T.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...