California Environmentalists: Bees Are Now Fish
The state's Endangered Species Act doesn't protect insects, so environmentalists and government officials intent on helping bees had to get creative.
HD DownloadFor the past few years, government officials and agricultural groups in California have been fighting over the question: Are bees fish?
The California Court of Appeal for the 3rd District ruled on May 31 that, legally, they are.
At the heart of this issue is the state's Endangered Species Act, which prohibits the import, export, possession, purchase, sale, or killing of listed species. Roughly 250 plant and animal species are protected by the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).
In 2018, environmentalists petitioned the California Fish and Game Commission to add four bumblebee species to the list of at-risk plants and animals governed and protected by the CESA. The Commission provided notice in 2019 that the four bumblebee species were candidates for CESA protection.
Birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, plants, and fish are categories of endangered species eligible for protection in California, but insects aren't. So how did state officials, at the behest of environmental groups, end up getting those bumblebees added?
By declaring them fish!
Citrus growers, almond producers, and other large agricultural groups in the state that would be affected by the classification quickly filed a lawsuit, but the appeals court agreed with the classification—bees are fish.
So what is a fish? According to the CESA, the word refers to "a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals."
The key word there is invertebrate. Because they don't have backbones, the appeals court ruled that bumblebees could reasonably be designated as fish since the word is considered a "term of art," meaning it has a definition within a specific field that diverges from common usage.
"We certainly agree section 45 is ambiguous as to whether the Legislature intended for the definition of fish to apply to purely aquatic species," the court's decision explains. "A fish, as the term is commonly understood in everyday parlance, of course, lives in aquatic environments." Because a snail (a terrestrial invertebrate) was previously listed under the act "and could have qualified as such only within the definition of fish," the court opted to liberally construe the act and the Legislature's intent when drafting it.
A problem with this reasoning is that it "seriously undercuts the idea that law is supposed to be clear and accessible to ordinary people," notes George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin. The average person has a particular understanding of what the word fish means and, when reading the law, "would be hard-pressed to figure out that harming bees is a no-no."
And yet, any farmer who harms or kills one of these protected bees could be punished with fines or have their pesticide permits rescinded. That could prove problematic since farmers will have to distinguish the four protected types of bees from the 21 other bumblebee species that can be found in California.
The court's ruling might also empower activists to further stretch the legal definitions of the CESA as they try to get more critters protected. The California Fish and Game Commission "may list any invertebrate as an endangered or threatened species" if the invertebrate meets the requirements of the relevant statutes, the court ruled.
Ladybugs, scorpions, moths, butterflies. Maybe someday they can be fish, too.
Editing and graphics by Isaac Reese; additional editing by Danielle Thompson
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Duh. Ever heard of Bumblebee Tuna?
Checkmate!
You won this comment section. Kudos.
I without a doubt have made $18k inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task (ky-11) accomplishing this I'm equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather extra cash on-line
travelling this site.
>>>>>>>>>> http://getjobs49.tk
That was truly inspired. You won the internet today. 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td9fqGlhxts
LOL. Since they cannot tell boys from girls and men can get pregnant etc. etc. etc. Anything goes in the froot loop state.
Outcome based judicial action. Great.
In fact, I made $30k in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money online by:-
.
Reading this article:>>>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
At first I thought Ms. Harrigan was simply a lazy journo for not searching Reason's archive to see if an article had already been written about this, but it turns out she wrote the most recent article about this too.
California Court Rules That Bees Are Fish
https://reason.com/2022/06/01/california-court-rules-that-bees-are-fish/
Yeah, but she didn't get any screen time for that one.
So what is a fish? According to the CESA, the word refers to "a wild fish [...] or ovum of any of those animals."
"Overturning of Roe v. Wade causes biologists at CESA to refuse abortions to fish and bees." - ENB
ENB waving the bloody rag....
Any excuse..... Any excuse at all to pull out Gov-Guns of dictatorship!!!!!
Why can't a bee identify as a fish? Fucking anti-trans-speciesists!!
Sure, but nobody asked the bees if they identify as fish or as something else.
It's hard to figure out what the legislature intended by "fish" when it includes "mollusk", "crustacean", and "invertebrate", since the last would include the other two. It implies that "invertebrate" as intended by the legislation would not have included mollusks or crustaceans as fish without their specific mention, but then what would have been included under "invertebrate"? So this a serious legal-semantic quandary. "Invertebrate" can't possibly mean all invertebrates, but neither can it mean no invertebrates. Nor can you fall back on the ordinary or biologic meaning of "fish" to resolve that dilemma, since it doesn't resolve it in either direction. So, being left like a toss of a coin, apparently all it takes is an appointed authority to decide whether it includes bees, and they said it does.
I expect it meant to cover marine invertebrates, including some insects that have aquatic larval stages, which bees do not.
"Aquatic" includes fresh water, so your understanding would include mosquitoes.
Mosquito larvae are a large part of the base of the freshwater food chain for game fish, for instance.
I mean, a naive person might've thought they meant "seafood", but in a world where legislatively cocaine is a "narcotic" and plant growth regulating hormones are "pesticides", who could tell?
It makes one wonder what the law's authors intended to exclude by not simply saying "any species of plant or animal"
Of course it could also just be politicians' compulsive need to categorize and subcategorize everything.
Because the law was inexact in its wording about what terms mean, the court ruled that bees can be considered marine invertebrates, despite the fact that bees have no part of their lifecycle.where they live in water.
This is what happens when you have a court looking to get to a result rather than following the intent of the law. This is how you get Roe and Obergefell as well.
If you start with some form of originalism as your method of interpreting constitutional text, I can see viewing Roe as incorrect. No one thought that the Constitution's protections for due process or privileges or immunities meant that restrictions on abortion would be banned when those clauses were drafted and ratified, so they don't mean that. That's the view in a nutshell, right?
Obergefell, on the other hand, simply takes seriously the idea that all persons are guaranteed Equal Protection of the law. What does Equal Protection mean to you that would allow states to deny marriage equality to same sex couples?
Of course, abortion wasn't banned under Anglo-Saxon Common Law until the "quickening," which could be as long as 25 weeks. Even when abortion was outlawed, it was never on a par with capital murder. So Anglo-Saxon Common Law was less strict than Roe.
Neither is ethically sound however.
With that same logic, you can use your "Equal Protection" argument to allow marriage at any age or two marry more than one person or two even marry one's self. Is that what you support?
Words can mean whatever you want them to mean.
A person carrying a 20 kg backpack (~44 lbs) hikes for 6 km on level ground (~4 miles). He did no work on the backpack. So why is he tired?
I take it you're one of those who really think bees are fish.
Thanks For This Article. Love From Blogging Adda
only bigots tell bees they are not fish.
If men can be women, even a woman of the year, I see no reason bees cannot be fish. If you are going to delude yourself, why stop with one species?
I guess all animal life evolved from fungi, so why quibble?
Bees are fish.
Liquor stores are parks.
Men are women.
Are you seeing a pattern here?
so we can eat them during lent...like capybaras?
You can eat anything if you give up religion for Lent. 😉
And get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant. (excepting Alice.) 🙂
If the statute hadn't included a definition of "fish," then this would be yet another instance of courts making shit up to further their policy preferences. But when a definition of "fish" includes words like "amphbian" and "invertebrate," each of which falls into the biological category of Not-Fish, then the question is much less clear cut.
Obviously, the legislature meant to cover certain categories of Not-Fish within the legal definition of "fish." Some commenters have argued that it meant to cover animals with some kind of aquatic connection, but that isn't something the statute says.
If I were on the court, I'd rule that the legislature probably effed up, that legislators threw a lot of words into the definition because they sounded good, but they didn't pay any attention to how they worked together, that they were redundant (because there's no need to list mollusks and crustaceans separately if invertebrates are already listed), and that they will have to live with the consequences of their own sloppiness. And maybe be more careful the next time they try drafting a statute.
(Yes, I realize I'd be tossing aside the canon of statutory construction that says that no words are presumed to be redundant. Whoever made that rule never watched the way legislatures actually work.)
"Are bees fish?"
Why not? If mushrooms are plants, two entirely different taxonomic kingdoms, bees and fish share much closer relatives.
*Waiting for Mother's Lament to chime in defending the Catholic Church's taxanomy of whales and otters as fish.*
Where was this said? Did you actually read what the Catholic Church's tenets really are? I suspect you did not.
Good to see Reason.com still sucking from the Koch Brothers teat - hope the money is working out for you guys.
Engineering is basically a stream and occupation, where knowledge regarding science and mathematics are implemented for designing and building up the structures, devices, machines, along with systems.Do you have pending Engineering academic tasks? Panic no more and come towards the Engineering Homework Help reference, in order to obtain accurate solutions for engineering problems.
https://www.tutorsglobe.net/engineering/engineering-assignment-help-25.html