California Appeals Court rules that bees are fish

[NewYorkExpress]

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/bees-fish-california-court-endangered-species-b2092119.html

According to a California appeals court, bees can be now legally classified as fish.

The decision, announced on Tuesday, came after state wildlife officials were sued by agricultural groups for attempting to list four bumble bee species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

The justices reversed a lower court decision and decided that threatened or endangered bees could be listed under the CESA category of fish - since “fish” is defined as including invertebrates.

....

Under CESA, an “endangered species” can be a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant. However this definition could leave out other threatened species, such as insects.

On the other hand, California’s Fish and Game Code defines “fish” as including wild fish, mollusks, crustaceans, invertebrates and amphibians. This seems to stretch the colloquial boundary of “fish” – few people would describe a crab as a fish, for example.

But the expanded definition allows the state to protect, for example, the California freshwater shrimp, a species which lives only in California and is threatened by development.

In this recent case, the state court had to decide whether bees counted as “invertebrates” under the state definition of “fish”.

“A fish, as the term is commonly understood in everyday parlance, of course, lives in aquatic environments,” the justices mused in the ruling.


However, California’s definition of “fish” includes at least one land-based invertebrate – the Trinity bristle snail.

The justices concluded that the definition of “fish” here should not be limited to aquatic wildlife, and that land-based invertebrates like bees can be listed under the law.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

Based ruling. Without domesticated land-based invertebrates, there would be no almond milk in our refrigerators and pumpkin spiced lattes.

[Skill and Chance]

Weird, but IMO correct.  For whatever reason, the legislature wrote a nonsensically broad definition of "fish."  If they aren't happy about that, they can amend the law at any time

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This is the obviously correct ruling since legislation very often defines terms in a way different from colloquial usage, sometimes to the point of the statute having an entire "definitions" section. For example, the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, a law that I often deal with for work, uses the expression "cultural items" to mean "human remains". If a legislature decides to use "fish" in a way that includes insects when writing an otherwise legit law, a decent court accepts that in the eyes of the law insects are fish, at least for the subject matter that the statute defining them that way covers.

[Vice President Christian Man]

Does that mean beekeepers are now fishermen?

[Utah Neolib]

All we have to do now is submerge a beehive into water to test this decision.

[MRS DONNA SHALALA]

Can't wait to head over to McDonalds this Friday for my Filet-O-Bees

[Figueira]

The word "fish" should be redefined to only include ray-finned fish. How often do we talk about coelacanths anyway?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

This is the obviously correct ruling since legislation very often defines terms in a way different from colloquial usage, sometimes to the point of the statute having an entire "definitions" section. For example, the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, a law that I often deal with for work, uses the expression "cultural items" to mean "human remains". If a legislature decides to use "fish" in a way that includes insects when writing an otherwise legit law, a decent court accepts that in the eyes of the law insects are fish, at least for the subject matter that the statute defining them that way covers.

Especially since there’s not really a purely scientific definition of “fish” that includes what the common person considers fish and doesn’t include what they don’t, to my knowledge.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Can't wait to head over to McDonalds this Friday for my Filet-O-Bees

It’s Friday, Friday?

How is it?

[Figueira]

This is the obviously correct ruling since legislation very often defines terms in a way different from colloquial usage, sometimes to the point of the statute having an entire "definitions" section. For example, the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, a law that I often deal with for work, uses the expression "cultural items" to mean "human remains". If a legislature decides to use "fish" in a way that includes insects when writing an otherwise legit law, a decent court accepts that in the eyes of the law insects are fish, at least for the subject matter that the statute defining them that way covers.

Especially since there’s not really a purely scientific definition of “fish” that includes what the common person considers fish and doesn’t include what they don’t, to my knowledge.

There's a definition, but it's not a very good scientific grouping because it's paraphyletic.

[MRS DONNA SHALALA]

Can't wait to head over to McDonalds this Friday for my Filet-O-Bees

It’s Friday, Friday?

How is it?

Tbh I don't get what all the buzz is about

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

The word "fish" should be redefined to only include ray-finned fish. How often do we talk about coelacanths anyway?

Not enough unfortunately

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

This is why you need a good definition for terms in your bills.

But anyway, yay for the bees