2 ms·

I'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 "

• happyopossum 4y ago
  Do 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 ago
    Yes, the ruling mentions it (with dates).
• rob74 4y ago
  The "bug" is (or rather, isn't) in this phrase: "[n]o person shall import into this state, or take, possess, or sell within this state, any bird, mammal, fish, amphibia or reptile, or any part or product thereof, that the commission determines to be an endangered animal or rare animal, except as otherwise provided in this chapter." I guess there must be a very good reason why they didn't want to add "invertebrate" (or, to be safe, "other animal") to this list and instead chose to repeatedly expand the definition of "fish". Ok, "fish" included crustaceans, and those are related to insects, so if you squint hard enough...
  • tptacek 4y ago
    You don't have to wonder about this. The court tracked down the context behind the definition, and it was written specifically to include terrestrial invertebrates (including the Lange metalmark butterfly and the Trinity bristle snail). The only reason this seems complicated is because the headline of this post has asked us to find it complicated. The real story is quite boring.