Not quite. The problem with the way the law is drafted is that the court could have just as easily (and perhaps more likely) applied the legal rule of construc

Not quite. The problem with the way the law is drafted is that the court could have just as easily (and perhaps more likely) applied the legal rule of construction known as noscitur a sociis (Latin, it is known by its associates) and interpreted "invertebrate" in context to mean something more like wet invertebrate. That, ultimately is what makes the drafters of the pertinent amendment to the statute look sloppy, like they do not know what they are doing. The court could have reasonably gone either way, and without some failure prone inquiry into legislative history they may not have any way to tell what the legislature intended. The doctrine of noscitur a sociis is simply shorthand for a standard way to resolve ambiguities like this, but the court used a different rule, making the legislature look silly for allegedly defining all invertebrates as fish for the purposes of this statute. Allegedly.