California court rules a bumblebee is a fish under environmental law
By: Lawrence Richard (Fox News)
When the laws and regulations don't fit realty then the Federal courts just create alternative facts.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A bumblebee is a fish under California law, a California court said in a ruling this week.
And thus, the bumblebee should be protected by the state's endangered species ordinances, court documents show.
In the case, Almond Alliance of California v. Fish and Game Commission, the California State Appellate Court of the Third District said the "issue presented here is whether the bumblebee, a terrestrial invertebrate, falls within the definition of a fish," according to legal documents.
According to the judges, the bumblebee is classified as a fish as a liberal interpretation of the word "fish", as well as the state's own legislative history, including non-aquatic life.
The judges explained that "although the term fish is colloquially and commonly understood to refer to aquatic species," the law, as it is written, makes the legal "definition of fish… not so limited," the court documents show.
The court explained the "Endangered Species Act" has given classification authority to the Fish and Game Commission to determine what is and is not an endangered species, court documents show.
And, under the law, the commission is solely responsible for establishing "a list of endangered species and a list of threatened species." The court also found the commission's authority "was not limited to listing only aquatic invertebrates."
The state's own legislative history also supports this "liberal interpretation" to classify a non-aquatic bumblebee as a "fish" as under state law "the Commission may list any invertebrate as an endangered or threatened species."
Before 1969, the law defined fish as "wild fish, mollusks, or crustaceans, including any part, spawn or ova thereof." That same year, the Legislature amended a section that defined fish to add invertebrates and amphibia.
This section was changed only once, in 2015, when the state Legislature modified the definition to read "'[f]ish' means a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals."
"We acknowledge the scope of the definition is ambiguous," the judges added, the court documents showed.
The court ultimately ruled Judge James P. Arguelles of the Sacramento County Superior Court "erred when [he] reached a contrary conclusion."
Tags
Who is online
728 visitors
Appellate judges can make pigs fly. Alternative facts have a place of reverence in the Federal courts.
Pretty sickening when people blatantly change the meaning of words to fit their agenda.
Why is this even a thing. It is called the fish and game commission.
Why is the 'and game' part totally ignored. Like they can only regulate fish....
Well there is Bumble Bee Tuna, HQ'd in San Diego.
A Bumblebee is a fish out of water?
Who knew?
Well you could argue that the Earth has a stratified atmosphere with a much heavier and denser atmosphere that lays near the lower land surfaces and therefore everything flying in the lighter area could actually be defined as swimming in the atmosphere above the stratified layer.
You could but unless you’re a shyster, why would you?
I’m baffled that any of this was necessary. The Department also controls wildlife, which also has a definition.
Is not a bee a “wild animal?”
Never expect a bureaucrat to be rational.
One of the things that gets argued in court all the time is, “If the Legislature had intended [X], they would have wrote it into the law.” I mean, it assumes a level of awareness, thoughtfulness, and competence that is totally unwarranted.
Agree totally. But, a court supplying meaning poses a bigger threat. I'd rather the court stick to what is there, and, however it is phrased, let the legislature know that it missed the boat on something that is not addressed in the legislation.
Oh I agree. I wouldn’t have it a different way. I just roll my eyes inside every time I write it or say it because I know how ridiculous I think it is. It still works, though.
Are domesticated bees that live in a commercial bee hive considered to be "wild'? /s
There is no question that Insecta are the largest family of Anamalia.
The case should have been settled two courts earlier.
I don’t know. Are they truly domesticated? Or just captive wild animals?
The logic is very fuzzy, but I agree with the decision. Gotta protect the bees
Just be glad beehives weren't classified as corporations.
Then they would automatically get first amendment rights.
A bunch of wealthy farmers trying to run roughshod over the environment by challenging the authority of the Dept. of fish and game. This judge did the right thing.