The legislature did address the gap. The legal text, as passed by the legislature, defines fish (within the context of the document) to include invertebrates. T

The legislature did address the gap. The legal text, as passed by the legislature, defines fish (within the context of the document) to include invertebrates. They could have called "fish," anything in this case. They could have called fish, apples. Doesn't make a difference. It couldn't be clearer. ignoring the text of the law and then declaring the court to have not done its job is ridiculous. In fact, if the court IGNORED the text of the law, I'd think that they'd be more open to a "legistlating from the bench," critique. For example, many traffic laws refer to roadways as highways, even if e.g. it is a driveway or a backalley.