Court rules against couple trying to keep their pet magpie
- Ms Wells and Mr Mortensen were initially granted a specialised wildlife care permit for their magpie, Molly.
- The Supreme Court decision reversed this permit after legal action was taken by a wildlife rescue volunteer concerned about the welfare of the bird.
- The couple's supporters expressed their dismay over the ruling, highlighting the complex issues surrounding wildlife care and conservation.
In Queensland, Australia, a legal battle unfolded around a couple, Ms Wells and Mr Mortensen, who have been caring for a magpie named Molly. In March 2024, authorities discovered they were operating without a permit, resulting in Molly being removed from their home. Following this incident, the couple obtained a wildlife carers' licence, but it was challenged in court by a wildlife rescue volunteer and supported by numerous other animal carers. Legal action was initiated against Queensland's Department of Environment, Science and Innovation (DESI) by the legal firm XD Law & Advocacy on behalf of the unnamed volunteer. The Supreme Court's decision to reverse the licence granted to the couple came after accusations that magpies are unsuitable as pets. The welfare of the bird emerged as a significant concern for the court and the wildlife community. Subsequently, this ruling has raised discussions surrounding wildlife preservation laws while highlighting the challenges faced by individuals attempting to care for native animals in domestic settings. Many social media supporters rallied behind the couple, emphasizing their connection with Molly and expressing their disbelief over the court's decision. The case has revealed the tension between wildlife conservation laws and societal views on pet keeping, particularly concerning native species like magpies that are often seen as appealing but are not meant to be kept as pets.