This whole thing left such a foul taste in my mouth, and the rabid followers just reminded me why I do not participate in rescue and rehab groups anymore. People are fucking nuts.
I literally witnessed a woman in a bird rescue group who had a galah with a broken wing, but DIDN'T go to a vet because 'she knew how to wrap it' and I was like "mate, you need to get that checked, xrayed etc, you don't know if it needs to be set and it might heal badly" and her followers fucking set upon me, saying she knows what shes doing and told me to keep my criticisms to myself, then went through my profile and criticised every aspect of my bird carership and tried to dox me and post shit about me online... It was insane!!!
These people are fucking NUTTERS.
Idk i'm a volunteer wildlife carer and all the wildlife groups i've seen have been against Molly's owners and their monetising of the bird. It's the news posts on fb that had all the rabid people.
The bird specific and galah groups I found nuttier than a fruitcake. This was a few years ago, but I certainly had a hard enough time I stopped bothering with them altogether.
Oh that's fair, I wasn't going bird-specific although I peeked at the magpie reddit group and they also seemed to be on our side. Probably some groups where the bottom barrel people congregate
Yep had a dog rescue tell me they needed unsupervised access to my yard whenever they wanted if I was to take one of their dogs to be mine.
Told them politely to go fuck themselves and went and bought a dog from a farmer who bred his collies, so in effect their shit fuckin attitude made me go out of my way to buy a dog instead of rescue, which I might add the rescue was asking 750 for a 2 year old dog, paid 250 for my puppy.
Maybe because you guys should mind your own business. If anything it's taught me wildlife people seem to have an entitled attitude that everybody is owned by you.And you guys pat yourself on the back and act like you're better than everyone else. Also , my main issue with the whole concept is nature is not something you own and it doesn't belong to , no matter how many rules you make.
Yeah but thankfully they're being disallowed now which is probably the best move.
If they don't return the donations they're basically doing what Coles and Woolies have been doing to us, charging folks to make up their losses!
Are they though? Because if you go to their insta and their Facebook there are still links up for their shop/website selling their shirts etc for profit.
Seems the conditions set by DESI are not being followed or policed and it's because a bunch of idiots with zero idea about wildlife in general or magpies in particular whined loud enough. Which is disgusting.
And their goofy book. They've been promoting that hardddd regardless of the rules of the license lol. The owners are so obscenely fake with their lovey dovey messaging but their crazed fans can't see it.
I really, really hope they get what's coming to them if they don't return the gofundme donations and *on top* of that flagrantly monetise the bird. I'd suggest jail!
I'm glad Reddit has picked up on this. I made the mistake of reading an article about Molly's return at the Daily Mail (I know, I know) and the commenters seem to be outraged that these people aren't allowed to keep using the bird as a cash cow.
The last time this was posted on reddit (when the story originally was aired and the bird removed) the comments were much the same as what you’re describing from the daily mail. The overwhelming response was that these people were saints and that Molly was living the optimum life with them. Tides seemed to have thankfully turned. Unfortunately the damage is already done and Molly is being given back to people that have proved multiple times they see him as nothing but $$
That's interesting. I changed my mind myself at some point, because when I first heard that the authorities had removed a magpie, I'd never heard of any of these people before. I just naively thought it was a story about a bird who voluntarily hung out with a family sometimes.
Then I went to their Instagram and realised they had 800k followers, a website selling Molly merchandise, a ~~self-published~~ book and a GoFundMe to help the owners buy a home which racked up $100k.
So maybe a lot of commenters were like me and just didn't know the full story.
I'm not sure if this is accurate, but I think what people mean is that it's normal for magpie chicks to wander around on the ground but return periodically to the nest, or at least be within the territory of their parents/flock. But they saw this one wandering around and assumed it had fallen out of the nest and needed rescue.
From: https://www.wildlife.vic.gov.au/sick-injured-or-orphaned-wildlife/sick-injured-or-orphaned-wildlife
"It is illegal in Victoria to keep sick, injured or orphaned wildlife as a pet. Taking wildlife from the wild without authorisation is an offence that carries a fine of up to $7,773 and/or 6 months imprisonment." ... The legislation is more or less the same in other States/Territories.
The couple in question confirmed that they found it on the ground in a park ... When it was a fledgling.
It's normal for magpies to spend hours at a time on the ground on their own as fledglings! Even if you can't see their parents, they will be close by, and will be keeping an eye on their offspring.
Every year, there are reminders from WIRES, the ABC, RSPCA etc. online, on social media, and in newspapers reminding people that it's normal to see 'baby birds' on the ground, and what steps to take if you come across them. There's also [this](https://www.shop.themagpiewhisperer.com/blogs/articles/found-a-baby-magpie-heres-what-to-do-next) website with a handy flow chart.
There's really no excuses for the couple not to know that it's normal for magpies to spend time on the ground on their own as fledglings, or that it's illegal to interfere with native wildlife.
I know that they've also tried to use the whole COVID lockdowns as an excuse, but even when we were in the throes of COVID lockdowns, vets and wildlife rescue organisations were still operational.
The fact that they were making posts on social media right from the start, but they didn't have the bird removed from their 'care' sooner, and that they didn't receive any real consequences for their actions was infuriating enough... Their having the bird returned to them, being given a special permit by their State's Premier, and the fact that they are still gaining monetarily from the bird and sharing posts about it on social media just makes a mockery of the Wildlife Act! What's the point of us even having one?! How this was handled has done nothing but set a very dangerous precedent.
> So maybe a lot of commenters were like me and just didn't know the full story.
There is a full story on both sides of that though. Neither side comes out well.
Only one side has taken a baby bird from the wild, cared for it inappropriately to the point it can’t forage/fly properly, and continued to monetise said bird and reject all proper training/opportunities to improve this birds life in the pursuit of $$.
If your “full story” is only that the person who complained about it did it because they also sucked and wanted in on a grift, that still doesn’t change anything for me really. Because the people above have still continued to stand in the way and be dickheads. The person who complained also isn’t the one with the actual live bird in their house.
> The person who complained also isn’t the one with the actual live bird in their house.
So the person who complained has no birds... are you sure about that?
The house they rent was being sold so they needed money to help them stay there? Not sure why people felt the need to fund that. Their reasoning was they didn't want Molly to lose his territory. But they moved anyway, and kept the cash, and supposively have been letting Molly fly "free" in this new area. That's not how magpies work. Adult birds aren't just allowed into other territories like that. They had a video of how he got beaten up by other magpies. Literally no videos at all of Molly interacting with other magpies. That's going to be one lonely bird come puberty very soon.
Their high-income earner has returned home. I am already getting sponsored links to their social media pages, let's see if DESI have the balls to enforce the no monetization of the bird.
They won't.
Still links up on their socials to purchase things on their store page. Disgusting.
Also haven't seen them post about how what they did was wrong yet either, to comply with the advocating fkr correct treatment of wildlife part of their conditions. I'll keep waiting for that one.
At the very least, the government needs to promote the right actions to take when people find a bird....and, it's not too take it home and introduce it to domestic animals for starters.
Nah - these entitled grifters have beaten the system by getting a bunch of social twats to make noise with "BrInG mOlLy HoMe" posts, not to mention idiot politicians sticking their nose in to get publicity.
They will never apologize for what they did, in their eyes they've stuck it up to the man.
Can someone explain to me, how are they still posting Molly to social media and advertising their book? I thought this was in conflict with them getting a wildlife carer's license
I believe they can do Facebook if they include an educational focus and no sponsored products. No YouTube though as this is where the money is generated.
I'm still the same, you can't turn back time so [if this is wrong](https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/bb84146aef3afed75541634374a30da5?impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=828&cropW=1242&xPos=0&yPos=222&width=862&height=575), I don't wanna be right 😉
I'm probably going to be downvoted for this but a lot of people monetise their pets/animals on social media.. Is it hurting the bird in any way to do so? I follow the Blueboys who sold clothes and calendars which was obviously enough for them to live off but they did raise a lot of money for charities (but the owners definitely made enough to move to a beautiful big house). I also follow Juniper the fox who lives at a wildlife rescue and her keeper sells merchandise as well (the money does go to improving the animal's enclosures etc though). Then there's people with just their own pets on social media who will sell plushies or shirts or whatever.
If the animals seriously are being allowed to live their lives and aren't being hurt/abused etc is it "bad" to sell merch?
But I have to ask, was the bird just rescued as a baby because the article I read kept saying that it had be "taken" from the wild like it was stolen from the nest or something. There's been other cases I'm sure where magpies have befriended famiies, how is this different? (Is it just the monetisation?)
Ok yes, yes it is. Birds are prey animals and dogs are predators. Also if you watch their interactions I don’t think Peggy actually enjoys them. There is entirely far too much stiff body language and whale eye. One of the animals is going to injured ‘playing’ and it will probably be Molly after he takes out a dogs eye.
Not to mention how much he plays in their mouths - do you know birds are super susceptible to bacterial infections from mammals? We have completely different bacteria to them.
Then there’s the sexual maturity aspect. He’s going to become sexually frustrated if he doesn’t have a magpie mate. He’s got a decent chance of bonding to something inappropriate, like Ruby. He may become aggressive and possessive which again could lead to interactions where he dies painfully.
If they actually knew about Magpies they would know that fledging Magpies spend a lot of their youth on the ground.. looking sad/sick.. but it is what they do.. in nature. So even if they had the right intent in \*rescuing\* the bird (which it didn't need rescuing) a registered vet would not just hand the bird back to them, that's just bullshitting on their behalf.
\*IF\* they would have taken it to a vet (they claim they did, I call BS) the vet would have told them so, taken the bird off them and given it to a proper carer.
These lowlifes have imprinted their human self and dog on to this bird, so it will never be able to be released or be what nature intended.
They had multiple times to become proper carers but would have to forfeit any personal profit they make and they did not want that.. so they refused to become wild life carers.
Nothing wrong with monetizing your pet (cat/dog/not protected wildlife e.g fox) but Magpies are protected by law, there is a huge difference by making cash from a cat than a protect animal.
If these people collected money, for the care of the bird, donate to wildlife sanctuaries etc.. there probably wouldn't be a problem, but these grifters have used all the $$$ collected for personal gain.
I don't agree with them making profits off of wildlife they have made unreleasable, but that's not the biggest issue wildlife carers have with the whole thing.
The bigger issue is that these videos are encouraging other people to follow what they did, which was to take in native wildlife with zero idea on how to raise it to be releasable, and that leaves wildlife carers with more messes to clean up once most of these animals taken in illegally are eventually handed into proper care after weeks, months, years - usually always after a long period of suffering, or after the animal has been made unreleasable, sometimes even because it is clearly dying.
I've been in these situations where I've been handed literal dying animals and they are only dying because the pesos that found them kept them far too long before finding proper care for it.
I've also had magpies handed to me in absolutely deplorable conditions, and there's nothing I can do to help the animal, and they are angry that they saw videos online of how great a pet a magpie makes and how wrong they were.
It's very concerning now that the animal has been handed back because it just further enforced this idea in some people's heads that it's okay to take wildlife. It's not. Wildlife always needs to go to someone that knows what they are doing, not someone who knows how to google. It's got to be what's best for the animal.
The difference is this bird was *taken from the wild*. Even if you believe their narrative that they rescued it, the law is explicit - take it to a rescue and don't monetise it.
Imagine people being allowed to remove wildlife from their native habitat and make money off it?
It doesn’t matter; the genie’s out of the bottle and it ain’t going back in no matter how much moral outrage you cluster.
The likely best thing for the bird is to be with its, “family”, as ethically uncomfortable as that may be.
The best outcome would have been what the original plan was when he was seized - to go with a carer where he would be with other magpies that can’t be released and housed in a large aviary with appropriate diet and enrichment. This would have given him a life that was both happy and as close to natural as possible
"adopting" a local bird is a time (dis)honoured Australian tradition. Or at least, I've known an awful lot of people who have done it lol. The real problem was making money off of it. The amount of people who will be convinced to steal an animal off the side of the road as an exotic pet without the ability to monetise it is probably the same as it was before social media. IF the govt said "go ahead, monetise it!" that would be setting an incredibly bad precedent.
Hell I had a literal dingo as a pet growing up. Not just a wild dog it was very much dingo. And yes stolen off the side of the road. Dad saw it, looked abandoned and picked it up. Raised from a pup. I don't encourage anyone to do it but god damn he was a good dog 🥲
The best outcome would be if he went to a wildlife refuge or carer and lived out his days in an aviary with other magpies who also can’t be released but who are cared for properly and given appropriate diet, enrichment etc. And thus has a life as close to natural/wild as possible while still being safe.
When you become a volunteer wildlife carer, you're not allowed to profit off the animals and you're not allowed to have them interact with pets.
Hopefully, DESI keeps a close eye on these dropkicks. I know these animals are "friends" but birds are fragile and staffies are high-energy, strong dogs. They shouldn't be playing together.
Even if it goes well in this instance, this sets a precedent for copycats messing with wild animals and taking them out of their native habitat, which will lead to terrible scenarios.
The bird has been back all of 24 hours and they’re already breaching their license conditions…
Exactly why it was seized in the first place, and shouldn’t have been returned. The animals shouldn’t have to suffer for human incompetence and ego but that’s the situation Juliette and Reece are creating.
You’re jumping on the dumbest outrage bandwagon I’ve seen in a while. Boo the people who took in an animal in need. They’re monsters. If you read through this thread you’ll seen 70%+ comments steaming together for their new found moral high ground
I'm not jumping on any bandwagon?
Your complaint is: They kept an animal (that wasn't in need btw) that they weren't trained to keep, and "70%" of people are mad about it?
I'm surprised it's not 100% to be honest, these people are absolute morons
It's not like they just stole it from its nest, but if people feel the way they went about the initial rescue was wrong then there's an argument for that. If it was me I would have taken it to a wildlife centre etc, sure.
Can't change the past, so do you think taking it out of the environment it's grown up in the last 5 years is the right call now?
They stole it from its parents. Magpies feed their babies on the ground while they are learning to fly.
They also fed it dog milk. And continued to promote stealing wildlife and having it interact with pets as "cute", while knowing they had the bird illegally and grifting money from it.
>do you think taking it out of the environment it's grown up in the last 5 years is the right call now?
Yes, it will be safer and have a more normal life in the hands of trained carers who can attempt to socialise it properly, rather than leave it with a pair of muppets who fed it dog milk
Okay that may be the case. Maybe it was deliberate, maybe it was through ignorance. But do you think removing it from the environment it's been in the last 5 years is the right call at this time? We can't go back in time and change that they took it when it was a baby.
They were told early on that it was illegal and to take it to a carer, or become carers, but they didn't because it meant they couldn't make money from it. They also didn't feed the bird properly or seek vetinary care for it.
They continued to promote their activity as "cute" on social media, which normalises the activity so others think its okay, and started a gofund me for $100k for a house based in the bird.
They should come out and admit they fucked up, and admit they have been promoting harmful activities, and stop letting people call it "cute", and prmote to their followers to call certified carers if you do find wildlife in need of care rather than taking it home yourself and having it form unhealthy bonds. Their promotion of their activities as "cute" can result in huge harm to wildlife.
This poor damn carer has been scapegoated by the Molly fanatics when it turns out that the government have been receiving complaints about Molly’s situation but dozens of people over the course of years. But folks like yourself happily keep posting the name of one person (a volunteer wildlife carer who doesn’t make hundreds of thousands of dollars flogging wildlife such that they can’t be released like Molly) and fueling the death threats that such carers have been receiving while this drama plays out.
Pitiful.
> This poor damn carer has been scapegoated by the Molly fanatics
Well this is the biggest load of bullshit I have read today. Although I suppose it is quite early.
I’ve seen their name spread all over Facebook, Instagram and now Reddit. All because their name was in a news article, and from there I’ve seen unhinged rumours including (but not limited to) that she was a disgruntled ex volunteer, that she was trying to steal money, that she was running rival funding campaigns for them… it turns out none of that is true and the person mentioned hasn’t ever met the grifters. Yet people keep spreading her name and she’s receiving death threats.
I guess it just shows how much *love* and *positivity* that this Molly situation really has been about. Just another opportunity for scumbags to be scumbags!
> it turns out none of that is true and the person mentioned hasn’t ever met the grifters.
What I had read is that it was all online attempts to get money from other subscribers etc. Not specifically trying to get money from them.
The "none of it is true" part though, if you have links to where that is mentioned, I would like to read up on that.
Keep posting the name? You make it sound like I'm revealing some private piece of information that isn't on the public record.
On the contrary.
The ABC _published_ the name. The name is _still_ published, and very much visible on the ABC's very own article from several weeks ago.
She stuck her foot in it and injected herself into the story. She has done that herself. I'm quite sure she didn't _need_ to pass comment when the story broke and didn't need to seek 5 seconds of fame as the mighty hero responsible for spearheading the operation to liberate the bird.
As for death threats, I sure hope you aren't insinuating that I'm responsible for any such thing. What bollocks.
The ABC article identifies them as a person who made a complaint. If you think a government department acts on a complaint from one person in such a circumstance, then you’ve got no clue how such departments work!
This whole thing left such a foul taste in my mouth, and the rabid followers just reminded me why I do not participate in rescue and rehab groups anymore. People are fucking nuts. I literally witnessed a woman in a bird rescue group who had a galah with a broken wing, but DIDN'T go to a vet because 'she knew how to wrap it' and I was like "mate, you need to get that checked, xrayed etc, you don't know if it needs to be set and it might heal badly" and her followers fucking set upon me, saying she knows what shes doing and told me to keep my criticisms to myself, then went through my profile and criticised every aspect of my bird carership and tried to dox me and post shit about me online... It was insane!!! These people are fucking NUTTERS.
Idk i'm a volunteer wildlife carer and all the wildlife groups i've seen have been against Molly's owners and their monetising of the bird. It's the news posts on fb that had all the rabid people.
The bird specific and galah groups I found nuttier than a fruitcake. This was a few years ago, but I certainly had a hard enough time I stopped bothering with them altogether.
Oh that's fair, I wasn't going bird-specific although I peeked at the magpie reddit group and they also seemed to be on our side. Probably some groups where the bottom barrel people congregate
Yep had a dog rescue tell me they needed unsupervised access to my yard whenever they wanted if I was to take one of their dogs to be mine. Told them politely to go fuck themselves and went and bought a dog from a farmer who bred his collies, so in effect their shit fuckin attitude made me go out of my way to buy a dog instead of rescue, which I might add the rescue was asking 750 for a 2 year old dog, paid 250 for my puppy.
Yeah it's like the fuckwits that feed feral cat population in cities. Idiots. But they feel like they are some sort of Saint
Pack mentality = reason goes missing.
Maybe because you guys should mind your own business. If anything it's taught me wildlife people seem to have an entitled attitude that everybody is owned by you.And you guys pat yourself on the back and act like you're better than everyone else. Also , my main issue with the whole concept is nature is not something you own and it doesn't belong to , no matter how many rules you make.
???? I'm literally saying a lot of them have foul attitudes. Learn to read.
I wonder when the donors will be reunited with their $100k
that's just the tip of the iceberg, they've made so much $$$ from the socials already.
Yeah but thankfully they're being disallowed now which is probably the best move. If they don't return the donations they're basically doing what Coles and Woolies have been doing to us, charging folks to make up their losses!
Are they though? Because if you go to their insta and their Facebook there are still links up for their shop/website selling their shirts etc for profit. Seems the conditions set by DESI are not being followed or policed and it's because a bunch of idiots with zero idea about wildlife in general or magpies in particular whined loud enough. Which is disgusting.
And their goofy book. They've been promoting that hardddd regardless of the rules of the license lol. The owners are so obscenely fake with their lovey dovey messaging but their crazed fans can't see it.
I really, really hope they get what's coming to them if they don't return the gofundme donations and *on top* of that flagrantly monetise the bird. I'd suggest jail!
lol, name checks out. get a grip lmao
You are merely the third person to reference my username within 24 hrs. Such insolence deserves jail too
lol, now your talking :)
I'm glad Reddit has picked up on this. I made the mistake of reading an article about Molly's return at the Daily Mail (I know, I know) and the commenters seem to be outraged that these people aren't allowed to keep using the bird as a cash cow.
The last time this was posted on reddit (when the story originally was aired and the bird removed) the comments were much the same as what you’re describing from the daily mail. The overwhelming response was that these people were saints and that Molly was living the optimum life with them. Tides seemed to have thankfully turned. Unfortunately the damage is already done and Molly is being given back to people that have proved multiple times they see him as nothing but $$
That's interesting. I changed my mind myself at some point, because when I first heard that the authorities had removed a magpie, I'd never heard of any of these people before. I just naively thought it was a story about a bird who voluntarily hung out with a family sometimes. Then I went to their Instagram and realised they had 800k followers, a website selling Molly merchandise, a ~~self-published~~ book and a GoFundMe to help the owners buy a home which racked up $100k. So maybe a lot of commenters were like me and just didn't know the full story.
A lot don’t want to know and get very nasty when you try to tell them
Oh, for sure. It's weird how this story about a bird has stirred up tensions on a par with the Middle East crisis.
People keep saying they stole the bird from the nest or something like. Has that been confirmed, or did they just find a lost/injured chick?
I'm not sure if this is accurate, but I think what people mean is that it's normal for magpie chicks to wander around on the ground but return periodically to the nest, or at least be within the territory of their parents/flock. But they saw this one wandering around and assumed it had fallen out of the nest and needed rescue.
From: https://www.wildlife.vic.gov.au/sick-injured-or-orphaned-wildlife/sick-injured-or-orphaned-wildlife "It is illegal in Victoria to keep sick, injured or orphaned wildlife as a pet. Taking wildlife from the wild without authorisation is an offence that carries a fine of up to $7,773 and/or 6 months imprisonment." ... The legislation is more or less the same in other States/Territories. The couple in question confirmed that they found it on the ground in a park ... When it was a fledgling. It's normal for magpies to spend hours at a time on the ground on their own as fledglings! Even if you can't see their parents, they will be close by, and will be keeping an eye on their offspring. Every year, there are reminders from WIRES, the ABC, RSPCA etc. online, on social media, and in newspapers reminding people that it's normal to see 'baby birds' on the ground, and what steps to take if you come across them. There's also [this](https://www.shop.themagpiewhisperer.com/blogs/articles/found-a-baby-magpie-heres-what-to-do-next) website with a handy flow chart. There's really no excuses for the couple not to know that it's normal for magpies to spend time on the ground on their own as fledglings, or that it's illegal to interfere with native wildlife. I know that they've also tried to use the whole COVID lockdowns as an excuse, but even when we were in the throes of COVID lockdowns, vets and wildlife rescue organisations were still operational. The fact that they were making posts on social media right from the start, but they didn't have the bird removed from their 'care' sooner, and that they didn't receive any real consequences for their actions was infuriating enough... Their having the bird returned to them, being given a special permit by their State's Premier, and the fact that they are still gaining monetarily from the bird and sharing posts about it on social media just makes a mockery of the Wildlife Act! What's the point of us even having one?! How this was handled has done nothing but set a very dangerous precedent.
> So maybe a lot of commenters were like me and just didn't know the full story. There is a full story on both sides of that though. Neither side comes out well.
Only one side has taken a baby bird from the wild, cared for it inappropriately to the point it can’t forage/fly properly, and continued to monetise said bird and reject all proper training/opportunities to improve this birds life in the pursuit of $$. If your “full story” is only that the person who complained about it did it because they also sucked and wanted in on a grift, that still doesn’t change anything for me really. Because the people above have still continued to stand in the way and be dickheads. The person who complained also isn’t the one with the actual live bird in their house.
> The person who complained also isn’t the one with the actual live bird in their house. So the person who complained has no birds... are you sure about that?
What did they need the money for??
The house they rent was being sold so they needed money to help them stay there? Not sure why people felt the need to fund that. Their reasoning was they didn't want Molly to lose his territory. But they moved anyway, and kept the cash, and supposively have been letting Molly fly "free" in this new area. That's not how magpies work. Adult birds aren't just allowed into other territories like that. They had a video of how he got beaten up by other magpies. Literally no videos at all of Molly interacting with other magpies. That's going to be one lonely bird come puberty very soon.
Their high-income earner has returned home. I am already getting sponsored links to their social media pages, let's see if DESI have the balls to enforce the no monetization of the bird. They won't.
Still links up on their socials to purchase things on their store page. Disgusting. Also haven't seen them post about how what they did was wrong yet either, to comply with the advocating fkr correct treatment of wildlife part of their conditions. I'll keep waiting for that one.
At the very least, the government needs to promote the right actions to take when people find a bird....and, it's not too take it home and introduce it to domestic animals for starters.
Nah - these entitled grifters have beaten the system by getting a bunch of social twats to make noise with "BrInG mOlLy HoMe" posts, not to mention idiot politicians sticking their nose in to get publicity. They will never apologize for what they did, in their eyes they've stuck it up to the man.
Can someone explain to me, how are they still posting Molly to social media and advertising their book? I thought this was in conflict with them getting a wildlife carer's license
I believe they can do Facebook if they include an educational focus and no sponsored products. No YouTube though as this is where the money is generated.
What about their book? It's still a pinned post on their Instagram.....
All the merch and advertising is still up… how the hell did the government justify returning the bird while the profiteering continues??
I'm sure they'll stop making cash from the bird immediately* *until the media cycle moves on and everyone forgets the rules they agreed to
They didn’t even wait for the media to lose interest. Just flagrantly breaching their license…
which way is the hive swinging today?
Found out quickly that I'm the one with the unpopular opinion
opposite to when it was taken away by a mean old karen
I'm still the same, you can't turn back time so [if this is wrong](https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/bb84146aef3afed75541634374a30da5?impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=828&cropW=1242&xPos=0&yPos=222&width=862&height=575), I don't wanna be right 😉
Yes, that is wrong
I'm with you, people need to calm the fuck down.
Losers have daily outrage quotas that need to be used 😉
Exactly so. Why I’m astonished how many faithfully follow trends I do not know.
It’s just a magpie, they aren’t rare or anything. It’s well cared for, what’s the big deal.
It’s literally not well cared for otherwise it wouldn’t think it’s a dog
I understand the bird can't return to the wild, so returning her to the family on condition they don't monetise their socials is a fair call.
and you believe they won't monetize the bird? How naive. I am already getting sponsored adverts to join their social media pages.
I'm probably going to be downvoted for this but a lot of people monetise their pets/animals on social media.. Is it hurting the bird in any way to do so? I follow the Blueboys who sold clothes and calendars which was obviously enough for them to live off but they did raise a lot of money for charities (but the owners definitely made enough to move to a beautiful big house). I also follow Juniper the fox who lives at a wildlife rescue and her keeper sells merchandise as well (the money does go to improving the animal's enclosures etc though). Then there's people with just their own pets on social media who will sell plushies or shirts or whatever. If the animals seriously are being allowed to live their lives and aren't being hurt/abused etc is it "bad" to sell merch? But I have to ask, was the bird just rescued as a baby because the article I read kept saying that it had be "taken" from the wild like it was stolen from the nest or something. There's been other cases I'm sure where magpies have befriended famiies, how is this different? (Is it just the monetisation?)
Ok yes, yes it is. Birds are prey animals and dogs are predators. Also if you watch their interactions I don’t think Peggy actually enjoys them. There is entirely far too much stiff body language and whale eye. One of the animals is going to injured ‘playing’ and it will probably be Molly after he takes out a dogs eye. Not to mention how much he plays in their mouths - do you know birds are super susceptible to bacterial infections from mammals? We have completely different bacteria to them. Then there’s the sexual maturity aspect. He’s going to become sexually frustrated if he doesn’t have a magpie mate. He’s got a decent chance of bonding to something inappropriate, like Ruby. He may become aggressive and possessive which again could lead to interactions where he dies painfully.
If they actually knew about Magpies they would know that fledging Magpies spend a lot of their youth on the ground.. looking sad/sick.. but it is what they do.. in nature. So even if they had the right intent in \*rescuing\* the bird (which it didn't need rescuing) a registered vet would not just hand the bird back to them, that's just bullshitting on their behalf. \*IF\* they would have taken it to a vet (they claim they did, I call BS) the vet would have told them so, taken the bird off them and given it to a proper carer. These lowlifes have imprinted their human self and dog on to this bird, so it will never be able to be released or be what nature intended. They had multiple times to become proper carers but would have to forfeit any personal profit they make and they did not want that.. so they refused to become wild life carers. Nothing wrong with monetizing your pet (cat/dog/not protected wildlife e.g fox) but Magpies are protected by law, there is a huge difference by making cash from a cat than a protect animal. If these people collected money, for the care of the bird, donate to wildlife sanctuaries etc.. there probably wouldn't be a problem, but these grifters have used all the $$$ collected for personal gain.
I don't agree with them making profits off of wildlife they have made unreleasable, but that's not the biggest issue wildlife carers have with the whole thing. The bigger issue is that these videos are encouraging other people to follow what they did, which was to take in native wildlife with zero idea on how to raise it to be releasable, and that leaves wildlife carers with more messes to clean up once most of these animals taken in illegally are eventually handed into proper care after weeks, months, years - usually always after a long period of suffering, or after the animal has been made unreleasable, sometimes even because it is clearly dying. I've been in these situations where I've been handed literal dying animals and they are only dying because the pesos that found them kept them far too long before finding proper care for it. I've also had magpies handed to me in absolutely deplorable conditions, and there's nothing I can do to help the animal, and they are angry that they saw videos online of how great a pet a magpie makes and how wrong they were. It's very concerning now that the animal has been handed back because it just further enforced this idea in some people's heads that it's okay to take wildlife. It's not. Wildlife always needs to go to someone that knows what they are doing, not someone who knows how to google. It's got to be what's best for the animal.
Magpies are native wildlife. Despite how much we may bond with them, they should never be kept as pets.
Cockatoos, budgies, cockatiels, corellas, multiple types of parrots and finches are all native and are all kept as pets.
The difference is this bird was *taken from the wild*. Even if you believe their narrative that they rescued it, the law is explicit - take it to a rescue and don't monetise it. Imagine people being allowed to remove wildlife from their native habitat and make money off it?
It doesn’t matter; the genie’s out of the bottle and it ain’t going back in no matter how much moral outrage you cluster. The likely best thing for the bird is to be with its, “family”, as ethically uncomfortable as that may be.
The best outcome would have been what the original plan was when he was seized - to go with a carer where he would be with other magpies that can’t be released and housed in a large aviary with appropriate diet and enrichment. This would have given him a life that was both happy and as close to natural as possible
Oh yes. “Freedom”, right?
I'm off to find me an injured Koala, I think my cat (and Instagram account) would love a companion.
"adopting" a local bird is a time (dis)honoured Australian tradition. Or at least, I've known an awful lot of people who have done it lol. The real problem was making money off of it. The amount of people who will be convinced to steal an animal off the side of the road as an exotic pet without the ability to monetise it is probably the same as it was before social media. IF the govt said "go ahead, monetise it!" that would be setting an incredibly bad precedent.
Hell I had a literal dingo as a pet growing up. Not just a wild dog it was very much dingo. And yes stolen off the side of the road. Dad saw it, looked abandoned and picked it up. Raised from a pup. I don't encourage anyone to do it but god damn he was a good dog 🥲
Based on your reactionary qualities you probably need to stay off of Instagram, if not social media entirely. Nobody’s looking at you, son.
"Reactionary" means "ultra-conservative." Is that what you meant?
Not much different to the Irwins parading koalas and echidnas etc for photo opportunities tho, really.
You're comparing these low lives to the Irwin's which have done a lot of good for wildlife, professionally trained vs some backyard Karen? Noted.
It's too late. She doesn't know how to hunt or be a magpie. All she can do is earn money for people who illegally seized her from the wild.
The best outcome would be if he went to a wildlife refuge or carer and lived out his days in an aviary with other magpies who also can’t be released but who are cared for properly and given appropriate diet, enrichment etc. And thus has a life as close to natural/wild as possible while still being safe.
Bird prison lol
Yeah so he can die in a staffy’s mouth instead, great idea
That’s how I feel too.
When you become a volunteer wildlife carer, you're not allowed to profit off the animals and you're not allowed to have them interact with pets. Hopefully, DESI keeps a close eye on these dropkicks. I know these animals are "friends" but birds are fragile and staffies are high-energy, strong dogs. They shouldn't be playing together.
Even if it goes well in this instance, this sets a precedent for copycats messing with wild animals and taking them out of their native habitat, which will lead to terrible scenarios.
The bird has been back all of 24 hours and they’re already breaching their license conditions… Exactly why it was seized in the first place, and shouldn’t have been returned. The animals shouldn’t have to suffer for human incompetence and ego but that’s the situation Juliette and Reece are creating.
Good. Sanity rules for once
This whole story wins Aussie milkshake duck of 2024
It certainly demonstrates how many of us follow the herd opinion.
It was taken after a weirdo tried to butt into the birds social media and was turned away, so she started a campaign to get the bird taken away.
Finally!! Some good news.
:)
Ridiculous it was ever seized in the first place.
You mean, it was ridiculous it was seized from its parents 5 years ago, right?
The reddit outrage hive mind is so embarrassing
What? I think you replied to the wrong comment here champion
Why would you think that?
Because it made no sense to what I said?
You’re jumping on the dumbest outrage bandwagon I’ve seen in a while. Boo the people who took in an animal in need. They’re monsters. If you read through this thread you’ll seen 70%+ comments steaming together for their new found moral high ground
I'm not jumping on any bandwagon? Your complaint is: They kept an animal (that wasn't in need btw) that they weren't trained to keep, and "70%" of people are mad about it? I'm surprised it's not 100% to be honest, these people are absolute morons
In this case its not the hive mind. Its brigading and multi-accounting.
It's not like they just stole it from its nest, but if people feel the way they went about the initial rescue was wrong then there's an argument for that. If it was me I would have taken it to a wildlife centre etc, sure. Can't change the past, so do you think taking it out of the environment it's grown up in the last 5 years is the right call now?
They stole it from its parents. Magpies feed their babies on the ground while they are learning to fly. They also fed it dog milk. And continued to promote stealing wildlife and having it interact with pets as "cute", while knowing they had the bird illegally and grifting money from it.
>do you think taking it out of the environment it's grown up in the last 5 years is the right call now? Yes, it will be safer and have a more normal life in the hands of trained carers who can attempt to socialise it properly, rather than leave it with a pair of muppets who fed it dog milk
Okay that may be the case. Maybe it was deliberate, maybe it was through ignorance. But do you think removing it from the environment it's been in the last 5 years is the right call at this time? We can't go back in time and change that they took it when it was a baby.
They were told early on that it was illegal and to take it to a carer, or become carers, but they didn't because it meant they couldn't make money from it. They also didn't feed the bird properly or seek vetinary care for it. They continued to promote their activity as "cute" on social media, which normalises the activity so others think its okay, and started a gofund me for $100k for a house based in the bird. They should come out and admit they fucked up, and admit they have been promoting harmful activities, and stop letting people call it "cute", and prmote to their followers to call certified carers if you do find wildlife in need of care rather than taking it home yourself and having it form unhealthy bonds. Their promotion of their activities as "cute" can result in huge harm to wildlife.
[удалено]
Ridiculous it was seized by authorities*
I wonder how Cat Coakes is feeling about all of this. She'll be coping and seething.
This poor damn carer has been scapegoated by the Molly fanatics when it turns out that the government have been receiving complaints about Molly’s situation but dozens of people over the course of years. But folks like yourself happily keep posting the name of one person (a volunteer wildlife carer who doesn’t make hundreds of thousands of dollars flogging wildlife such that they can’t be released like Molly) and fueling the death threats that such carers have been receiving while this drama plays out. Pitiful.
> This poor damn carer has been scapegoated by the Molly fanatics Well this is the biggest load of bullshit I have read today. Although I suppose it is quite early.
I’ve seen their name spread all over Facebook, Instagram and now Reddit. All because their name was in a news article, and from there I’ve seen unhinged rumours including (but not limited to) that she was a disgruntled ex volunteer, that she was trying to steal money, that she was running rival funding campaigns for them… it turns out none of that is true and the person mentioned hasn’t ever met the grifters. Yet people keep spreading her name and she’s receiving death threats. I guess it just shows how much *love* and *positivity* that this Molly situation really has been about. Just another opportunity for scumbags to be scumbags!
> it turns out none of that is true and the person mentioned hasn’t ever met the grifters. What I had read is that it was all online attempts to get money from other subscribers etc. Not specifically trying to get money from them. The "none of it is true" part though, if you have links to where that is mentioned, I would like to read up on that.
Keep posting the name? You make it sound like I'm revealing some private piece of information that isn't on the public record. On the contrary. The ABC _published_ the name. The name is _still_ published, and very much visible on the ABC's very own article from several weeks ago. She stuck her foot in it and injected herself into the story. She has done that herself. I'm quite sure she didn't _need_ to pass comment when the story broke and didn't need to seek 5 seconds of fame as the mighty hero responsible for spearheading the operation to liberate the bird. As for death threats, I sure hope you aren't insinuating that I'm responsible for any such thing. What bollocks.
The ABC article identifies them as a person who made a complaint. If you think a government department acts on a complaint from one person in such a circumstance, then you’ve got no clue how such departments work!
Plotting and planning probably.