10 ms·
California court finds that bees fall within a legal definition of fish [pdf]
- MAGZine 4y agoFlagged as inaccurate. The court does not find bees are fish, the court finds that the legal text defines fish to include invertebrates, which bees are. California court finds that bees fall under classification defined by legal text is a more appropriate headline.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- joshuaheard 4y agoActually, this wacky judge did say bees are fish. The reasoning goes like this. The statute says that the definition of fish included invertebrates (having no backbone). While technically, fish are not invertebrates, the legislature obviously meant to include other forms of aquatic life, like invertebrates, into the definition of fish, for instance sea slugs. Now, there are terrestrial invertebrates as well, for instance, bees. No reasonable person would think that the legislature meant to include terrestrial invertebrates into the definition of fish. But, that's what this judge did, giving the absurd result that bees are fish.
- tptacek 4y agoWildly inaccurate. The "wacky judge" had no choice but to find that bumble bees fit the definition of "fish" set in the statute, because the definition in the statute was specifically written to include them. Not just aquatic invertebrates, but indeed explicitly terrestrial ones as well --- the Lange metalmark butterfly and the Trinity bristle snail, among others. Nobody who actually read the decision could be left with the impression that this is about what "reasonable people" would understand the term "fish" to be, because that's not remotely what the statute itself says.
- joshuaheard 4y agoThe judge took those definitions from other parts of the law. An interpretation should not result in an absurd conclusion. If so, your interpretation is wrong. Here's what the judge should have said. "In this part of the law, 'invertebrate' refers to a fish. In other parts of the law, 'invertebrate' refers to terrestrial animals. Obviously, the legislature did not mean to include terrestrial animals as fish. Therefore, a bee is not a fish".
- tptacek 4y agoObviously, the legislature intended exactly that, as the decision explains. The dispute here is about whether California has the authority to designate bees as endangered species, not whether it has the authority to regulate fisheries with respect to bees. In October 2018, the public interest groups petitioned the Commission to list four species of bumble bee as endangered species: the Crotch bumble bee, the Franklin bumble bee, the Suckley cuckoo bumble bee, and the Western bumble bee (collectively the four bumble bee species) [... 2 grafs ...] In September 2019, petitioners challenged the Commission’s decision by filing a petition for writ of administrative mandate in the trial court. Petitioners asserted the Commission’s determination that the four bumble bee species qualify for listing as candidate species under the Act “violated the Commission’s legal duty, was a clear legal error, and was an abuse of discretion.” There's a bunch of problems with the argument that California can't legally designate bugs as endangered species, one of which is that the act was amended specifically to protect endangered butterflies in the first place, the other of which is that it would be an insane result. It's an easy opinion to read. You can just get this from the document linked on the thread. It's all right there.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> The judge took those definitions from other parts of the law. No, the judge took examples from other areas of the law as evidence against the argument that the Legislature could not have intended what the plain language of the definition in the section of the law in dispute directly says. The definition was not taken from a different section of law, only evidence against the effort to reinterpret the definition in a narrower way than it's plain language suggests.
- yieldcrv 4y agoI see nothing wacky about this judge > We acknowledge the scope of the definition is ambiguous but also recognize we are not interpreting the definition on a blank slate. The legislative history supports the liberal interpretation of the Act (the lens through which we are required to construe the Act) that the Commission may list any invertebrate as an endangered or threatened species. > (the lens through which we are required to construe the Act) > through which we are required Take it up with Sacramento!
- ravi-delia 4y agoIt was the legislature which decided to shoehorn in a number of definitely non-fish creatures to the definition of fish. There was debate about including butterflies, and that was before invertebrates were even added! It's...well it's obviously insane, but reading through it I'm kind of persuaded. Sure California legislature, birds are fish. Whatever spares you the trouble of typesetting a new section.
- sbuccini 4y agoFrom the opinion: > The issue presented here is whether the bumble bee, a terrestrial invertebrate, falls within the definition of fish, as that term is used in the definitions of endangered species in section 2062, threatened species in section 2067, and candidate species (i.e., species being considered for listing as endangered or threatened species) in section 2068 of the [California Endangered Species] Act. > We conclude a liberal interpretation of the Act supported by the legislative history and the express language in section 2067 that a terrestrial mollusk and invertebrate is a threatened species (express language we cannot ignore), is that fish defined in section 45, as a term of art, is not limited solely to aquatic species. Accordingly, a terrestrial invertebrate, like each of the four bumble bee species, may be listed as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Some background on the lawsuit: https://almondalliance.org/california-court-rules-insects-not-protected-by-endangered-species-act/ https://almondalliance.org/california-court-rules-insects-no... Primer on the relationship between almond orchards and beekeepers: https://bee-health.extension.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/CA-Almond-Pollination-Factsheet-FINAL-v2.pdf https://bee-health.extension.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/...
- dmoy 4y ago
- CameronNemo 4y agoThis is a state court, not federal.
- bcatanzaro 4y agoThe bumblebee tuna folks have known this for years.
- jcuenod 4y agoIs this a Transformers joke?
- spicybright 4y agoNah, it's a brand of tuna.
- NegativeLatency 4y agoIt’s a brand of tuna
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- CameronNemo 4y agohttps://duckduckgo.com/?q=bumblebee+tuna&ia=images&iax=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bumblebee+tuna&ia=images&iax=image...
- pacetherace 4y agoAs per the law fish = foo
- mellavora 4y agoNo! Fish are friends! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6mVl6fAxLw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6mVl6fAxLw
- pxeger1 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Such_Thing_as_a_Fish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Such_Thing_as_a_Fish
- robonerd 4y ago(It's a nice podcast, but discussing the name:) The phylogenetic nomenclature is basically textbook cope; coping with the fact that the ancient word of fish doesn't align well with what biologists have learned. If you want to create a scientifically and genetically sound classification of 'fish' that roughly aligns with what people already know fish to be, then you have to make it a phylogenetic group to exclude humans, whales, lizards, snakes, etc. It's a mess. But it's a mess biologists unnecessarily made for themselves, by trying to adapt an ancient word to their new discoveries. I prefer the traditional approach: fish do exist, they are simply animals that live in the water. It's not a genetic classification, simply a folk taxonomy. Salmon and hagfish both live in the water, so they're both fish. Dolphins live in the water, so they're fish too. Starfish and jellyfish are both fish. Sea turtles are almost fish, but not quite because they lay their eggs on dry land. Coral are a tricky edge case.
- failTide 4y agoThat's fine with me. I suppose if other arthropods are already legally classified as fish then it's not much of a leap. Not sure what impact bees have on aquatic ecosystems though - I was able to google something about potential pollination of a few aquatic plants - but that seems very minimal. The terrestrial mollusk they mention, the Trinity Bristle Snail [1] is found along river ecosystems and would presumably have more of an impact on those aquatic ecosystems. But if a loophole is needed to protect the bees then it's probably a good idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_bristle_snail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_bristle_snail
- giantg2 4y ago"But if a loophole is needed to protect the bees then it's probably a good idea." Or the legislature could do their jobs and craft appropriate legislation.
- fdr 4y agothey did, but in a way rather odd, where they have a remark in the law that "fish" are a shorthand for, among other things, invertebrates. I wonder if such a drafting choice would be made today, in the presence of the modern word processor.
- giantg2 4y agoI believe that was in the context of aquarically associated invertebrates, right?
- tptacek 4y agoThey specifically did not do that. The court tracked down the origin of this change in the definition of the law, and the legislature at the time was acting in part to preserve an endangered terrestrial snail. If they'd meant "aquatic invertebrates", that's what they'd have said.
- 4y ago
- q_andrew 4y agoTo be fair, most species of fish evolved independently, and the term 'fish' has zero scientific category or phylum. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish --- In earlier times, even biologists did not make a distinction – sixteenth century natural historians classified also seals, whales, amphibians, crocodiles, even hippopotamuses, as well as a host of aquatic invertebrates, as fish. Edit: to put things into perspective, a salmon is more closely related to a camel than it is to a hagfish.
- mcphage 4y ago> and the term 'fish' has zero scientific category or phylum. And yet, a bumblebee is clearly not a fish.
- shadowgovt 4y agoSomewhere, on some metaphysical plane, Diogenes is running desperately through the equivalent of a hallway towards the equivalent of a forum with the equivalent of a can of tuna in his hand.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> And yet, a bumblebee is clearly not a fish. A bumblebee is clearly an invertebrate. The statute explicitly defines “fish” for the purpose of the power at issue as “a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.” [Cal. Fish & Game Code § 45, emphasis added] A bumblebee is, unmistakably, a “fish” under the applicable statutory definition. The challenge to the executive branch action here called on the court to disregard the express language of the statute granting regulatory authority.
- MengerSponge 4y ago> This is a wonderfully medieval definition of "fish." I mean that in the best possible way and I am 100% here for this. https://twitter.com/greenleejw/status/1531838008026185729?s=20&t=m6NrmH3XtHs1q8KWsFp_uw https://twitter.com/greenleejw/status/1531838008026185729?s=...
- xipho 4y agoThis is why research ontologies split labels from concepts, and link them with contexts (e.g. citations). When parties join into this framework of understanding then discussions get down to the nitty-gritty details of what meaningful work can be done with the concepts. None of this says that any of it is "real", complete, precise etc., it says that if we agree on x, then we can do something useful, y. Want to label "the exoskeleton bearing 6 legged ... etc." a "fish"? Go ahead, we'll go back to think, read, and understand what is being discussed, and given this deeper understanding agree to do something useful (perhaps preserve said "fish"), or not, i.e. we'll do law-stuff in this case. This of course doesn't work unless the parties agree to playing in the shared framework, otherwise labels/words have untethered power, which is typically what happens on the internet. It also isn't universally effective, sometimes going deep gets in the way of doing meaningful stuff.
- giantg2 4y agoIn general, "law-stuff" uses the definitions specified in the law. If a word isn't defined, then they can look at how other laws define the word. Then they could look at the definition in a dictionary. This is established process. The proper way to get this useful thing done is for the legislature to amend the law to be more inclusive.
- xipho 4y ago> amend the law to be more inclusive Philosophy tells us this is one way to change concepts, another is to narrow definitions, both have known limitations. There are many ways to do meaningful things, by this definition "proper" just means something meaningful was done?
- giantg2 4y agoProper in that it follows the established protocols and rules. If you aren't following the agreed upon process then the system is undermined.
- 4y ago
- ccleve 4y agoCertainly, the endangered species act ought to include insects, but as written it just doesn't. The opinion itself makes that crystal clear by showing the plain language of the act itself, the context of the relevant language, and the legislative history. In context, it's clear that the legislature intended "invertebrates" to mean aquatic ones. There is zero textual evidence to the contrary. The California legislature ought to step in and do a quick amendment to include insects and be done with it. This court is legislating from the bench. This opinion is an embarrassment to the legal profession.
- xbar 4y agoAgreed.
- shadowgovt 4y agoHaving just read the plain letter of the law, it lists "invertebrate" as one of the categories in the group "fish" and makes no qualifier on type of invertebrate. This is why careful phrasing is key in legislation. Nothing curtails the legislators' authority to give fish and game authority over things that most people don't think of as fish. It would be nice if the legislature would pass a law to clarify their intent, but the amazing thing about the way the law works is they can just refrain from doing so, this President stands, and everyone wins with no further effort. Kinda elegant in its own weird way.
- tptacek 4y agoThis analysis seems like a reach. The definition specifically includes "amphibians", putting frogs in its plain meaning, and plenty of toads aren't aquatic in any ordinary sense of the term. It seems more as if your conclusion, that we should ignore the plain meaning of the word in the statute and instead try to capture the ineffable intent of the authors of the statute to discern precisely which invertebrates they meant, is the one with less grounding. If they wanted the statute to refer to "aquatic invertebrates", they'd have said so.
- robonerd 4y ago> plenty of toads aren't aquatic in any ordinary sense of the term. I don't think that's true. Maybe there's an odd exception out there somewhere, but toads start life as aquatic tadpoles.
- bena 4y agoJust like fish, trees aren't real. There's no single evolutionary branch where we go from non-tree to tree. What we call trees are speckled throughout without seeming rhyme or reason. It's mostly because our fuzzy definitions of things are just that, fuzzy. Tall, thick, bark-covered plant? Yeah, tree. Water-breathing legless animal? Fuck it, fish. Tomatoes are fruits and everyone loves this fact. But so are bell peppers. And I think cucumbers. In fact, most vegetables are technically fruits (anything with a fruiting body is a fruit). And half the nuts are legumes. And legumes are fruits. And all fruits are also vegetables. Because vegetables are the part of plants we eat. But most vegetables are some other sort of plant life. So in short, our classifications and definitions are more what you'd call "guidelines".
- ravi-delia 4y agoTrees are significantly less of a thing than fish! Fish are almost a phylogenetic class; just remove reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals, and insects! It's like measure, there are only countably many discontinuities. Trees are more like fins then fish. There are pairs of trees whose last common ancestor wasn't a tree, and visa versa. Many non-trees are just a few genetic tweaks away from being trees, suggesting evolution has kept around a master control switch in case the environment favors trees one day. Trees are... ...what was the original subject? Trees are just so cool
- tptacek 4y agoThe headline is funny, but the opinion is boring and obvious. The act itself defines the term "fish": ‘[f]ish’ means a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.” It's just a technicality. A statute was written using the term "fish" in a bunch of places, and rather than replace "fish" with "fish, mollusk, invertebrate, &c" in every place where that term was used, they just changed the definition. Every statute you'll ever read has explicit definitions, presumably for this exact reason. Fun fact: for a time, according to Dave Arnold, the Catholic church defined beavers as meat, but beaver tails as fish. You could eat the tail on a Friday, but not the rest of the beaver.
- shadowgovt 4y agoThe mistake they made is that they used a much broader category in the clarifier for the definition of fish than they may have intended to. "Invertebrate" is a massive section of the animal kingdom. Poor choice of words if they only meant the wet ones.
- gpm 4y agoI'm not convinced it was an accident. They took an existing statute, decided they wanted to extend it, and did it in the lazy way of adding "invertebrates" to "fish" instead of replacing the word "fish" all over the place.
- happyopossum 4y agoDo you know in fact that the legislature changed the definition after the fact? It seems to me more like crappy law-making than expedient changes.
- gpm 4y agoYes, the ruling mentions it (with dates).
- rob74 4y ago
- louissan 4y agoAnd thank you for all the fish
- shadowgovt 4y agoAny Catholics in the audience may remember when the Vatican did something similar with capybara to address the dietary / fasting needs of some South American communities.
- yieldcrv 4y agoI sometimes see some armchair legal arguments about how the law isn't a list of and / or conditional statements I always contend it is and here, it is
- causi 4y agoSo it begs the question, what's the legal definition of invertebrate? The scientific definition includes species that could cause a variety of legal complications such as microanimals.
- tptacek 4y agoPresumably, the definition allows California to, if it so chooses, protect microanimals that it designates as endangered.
- legitster 4y agoOkay, but for real, why then would the law not have been written to apply to all animals? It seems like they were being specific. Especially for the purposes of the endangered species act - insect classification is already tricky enough. You could have two nearly identical bugs except for which side of the river which they spawn on. And now you are required to estimate the population over every type of insect and determine its endangered status, and use it as an insurmountable veto power on any new developments? This seems like a bad pandora's box to open.
- JoeAltmaier 4y agoCute, but the legal decision was entirely about "definition of fish, as that term is used in the definitions of endangered species in section 2062, threatened species in section 2067, and candidate species (i.e., species being considered for listing as endangered or threatened species)" I.e. what the Fish and Wildlife folks have domain over.
- csours 4y agoAs pointed out by Stephen Jay Gould and the show QI - "There's no such thing as a fish". Likewise, there's no such thing as a tree. Try asking a person in the street "Is X an animal" - where is bumblebee, fish, roach, dustmite, jellyfish. The default image of animal is a dry mammal or bird. As I understand it, the law has a section for birds, a section for mammals, and a section for fish. The section for fish might better be termed Animals that are not mammals or birds, but I guess that gets cumbersome.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- stillbourne 4y agoHey guys, there's no scientific definition for a fish either. Evolutionarily speaking, from the perspective of monophyletic taxonomy, if fish were a thing, we'd also be classified as fish. We're not though we're vertebrates. Bees are pancrustacean hexapod invertebrates, as are all insects generally, as adults adapted to land rather than being amphibious, even if they have an amphibious larval stage, which bees don't. There is a tendency to consider anything less evolved than an amniote as a fish in general practice. That would include insects.