THE family of an Ipswich boy chased to his death by a magpie last year has called for tighter controls on the birds after another was spared the death penalty.

And a Griffith University magpie expert says someone loses an eye every year in Australia to attacks from the black and white feathered icons.

The comments came as a menacing magpie that attacked a Tweed Heads schoolgirl was given a death row reprieve, after gun-shy police refused to execute it.

The decision flew in the face of a destruction order issued by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, which had declared the magpie "an aggressive bird".

Wildlife lovers had condemned the planned execution but the family of 12-year-old Ivan Sthrowski-Wood, who ran into the path of a car while fleeing a swooping magpie at Walloon in August last year, backed the use of lethal force against "rogue" birds.

"The State Government brings in all these wildlife protection laws but doesn't do enough to protect humans," relative Keith Nutton said.

"The same magpie that was responsible for Ivan's death had been harassing quite a few people but it took a tragedy for the Government to do something about it and relocate the bird.

"We're not anti-magpie but if these birds are attacking people, they need to be destroyed. We've got to stop pussyfooting around."

Griffith University behavioural ecologist Darryl Jones said he and fellow researchers had recorded about 1000 magpie attacks a year in southeast Queensland during a 1990s study. He said while serious injuries were rare, "at least one eye is lost every year".

"In 1997, four kids across Australia lost eyes as a result of magpie attacks," he said.

However, Prof Jones said while shooting the birds used to be common practice, it was "so unacceptable these days".

He said relocating rogue magpies had proven effective and recommended NSW authorities try it with the Tweed Heads bird.

media_camera A magpie has been attacking people near where they are nesting at South Tweed. Courier-Mail journalist Greg Stolz is attacked by one of the magpies. Picture: Adam Head

The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service declared the magpie 'an aggressive bird' and issued a permit for its destruction after it swooped teen Samantha Croft on her way home from school last week, drawing blood.

But after public outcry, Tweed Heads police baulked at pulling the trigger at the "dead bird squalking" and flick-passed the matter back to the NPWS, which said it was considering relocation and erected warning signs.

Service spokesman Lawrence Orel said the death warrant had been shelved for the time being and would probably only be re-activated if the magpie attacked again.

Mr Orel said the NPWS could not force police to carry out the execution. He said the blaze of publicity about the case meant people were now more likely to avoid the rogue magpie's nesting area or take precautions to prevent being hurt.

Samantha's father, George, whose complaint to authorities sparked the destruction order, said he was not concerned if the magpie was not put down.

Service spokesman Lawrence Orel said the death warrant had been shelved for the time being and would probably only be re-activated if the magpie attacked again.

Mr Orel said the NPWS could not force police to carry out the execution.

He said the blaze of publicity about the case meant people were now more likely to avoid the rogue magpie's nesting area or take precautions to prevent being hurt.

"It's a win-win situation for the magpie and the community,'' he said.

"No-one wants to see an iconic Australian bird destroyed. If anything, this case shows that the community really values its birds.''

Samantha's father, George, whose complaint to authorities sparked the destruction order, said he was not concerned if the magpie was not put down.

"I won't be losing any sleep over it but I think the question needs to be asked, on what basis was the decision (not to proceed with the magpie's execution) made?'' he said.

"Was it just the police and Parks and Wildlife Service bowing to negative publicity and making policy on the run?

"If police are delegated to carry out the destruction, what right of refusal do they have? What if it was a dangerous dog and they just refused to shoot it? It sounds like a case of the tail wagging the bloody dog.''

Originally published as Dead boy's family back magpie killing