3 ms·

Flagged 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. Califo

Flagged 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 ago
Actually, 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 ago
  Wildly 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      Obviously, 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  It 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.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

joshuaheard 4y ago

Actually, 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 ago
Wildly 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    Obviously, 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 ago
I 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 ago
It 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.