3 ms·

While absurd, the blame lies not with the court, but the CA laws and regulations it was bound to interpret, which do more or less state that "invertebrates" are

While absurd, the blame lies not with the court, but the CA laws and regulations it was bound to interpret, which do more or less state that "invertebrates" are to be considered "fish".

rayiner 4y ago
Not really. It’s a basic principle of statutory construction that you read words of a statute in context. There is also a basic principle that where a more general term follows more specific terms in a list, the more general term is limited by the context of the more specific terms: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ejusdem_generis https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ejusdem_generis Here, the list purports to enumerate “fish.” And the other items on the list are marine animals, like mollusks. So the best statutory construction would be that, in this context, “invertebrates” means “marine invertebrates.” Which is almost certainly what the legislature meant. But this is California after all!
- sumy23 4y ago
  Mollusks, crustaceans, and amphibians aren’t fish either. Toads can live on land, so it’s not strictly about living in a marine environment. The law says it allows for listing invertebrates as endangered species. Doesn’t seem that crazy to include bees. Apparently a terrestrial mollusk is already covered by the same law.
- lupire 4y ago
  You should reread the OP, which devotes many pages of expert analysis of 50 years of legislative and executive history. As a lawyer, you should know better than to make an underinformed unqualified statement about matters of law.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    > You should reread the OP, which devotes many pages of expert analysis of 50 years of legislative and executive history. If the legislature intended “fish” to mean something other than “fish and fish-like things” they could have changed the definition. They chose not to do that. The fact that the “expert” agencies have been flouting the law for decades doesn’t change the meaning of the words on the page. Also, as the superior court observed, the legislature expressly rejected efforts to add “invertebrates” to the list of protected animals. > As a lawyer, you should know better than to make an underinformed unqualified statement about matters of law. I’m commenting on what the interpretation should be in this straightforward case, not offering an opinion on what a California court may or may not do. Here, the superior court offered a well reasoned decision finding that insects are not fish: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/klvykolmmvg/Sacramento%20County%20Superior%20Court%20Almond%20Alliance%20v%20CFGC%202020.pdf https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/klvykolmmvg/... The appellate court had to spend a lot of pages and did a lot of hand waving to overcome the clear words on the page. But that contrivance diminishes the persuasiveness of the opinion, it doesn’t enhance it!
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > And the other items on the list are marine animals, like mollusks Mollusks, like the broader group of invertebrates, include both aquatic and terrestrial species. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_mollusc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_mollusc Crustaceans also include some terrestrial species (most woodlice, for instance.) So your argument premised on the other groups in the list being aquatic is fatally flawed: fish are aquatic, sure, but crustaceans and mollusks can be aquatic or terrestrial, and amphibians are...amphibious.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    When the legislature included “crustaceans” in the definition of “fish” they didn’t meant “woodlice.”
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > When the legislature included “crustaceans” in the definition of “fish” they didn’t meant “woodlice.” So, your argument that they didn't meant “aquatic invertebrate” when they said “invertebrate” is based on the fact that “crustacean” and “mollusk” are unambiguously aquatic, and that the fact that these unambiguously aquatic terms were used means that “invertebrate” was implicitly restricted. But your claim that “crustacean” and “mollusk” are unambiguously aquatic relies on exactly the same unstated restriction, as both are terms that encompass terrestrial species, and your support for that is...what? Compared to the extensive analysis of the legislative history and context in the opinion supporting the opposite conclusion, this is singularly unpersuasive.

While absurd, the blame lies not with the court, but the CA laws and regulations it was bound to interpret, which do more or less state that "invertebrates" are to be considered "fish".

rayiner 4y ago

Not really. It’s a basic principle of statutory construction that you read words of a statute in context. There is also a basic principle that where a more general term follows more specific terms in a list, the more general term is limited by the context of the more specific terms: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ejusdem_generis https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ejusdem_generis Here, the list purports to enumerate “fish.” And the other items on the list are marine animals, like mollusks. So the best statutory construction would be that, in this context, “invertebrates” means “marine invertebrates.” Which is almost certainly what the legislature meant. But this is California after all!

sumy23 4y ago
Mollusks, crustaceans, and amphibians aren’t fish either. Toads can live on land, so it’s not strictly about living in a marine environment. The law says it allows for listing invertebrates as endangered species. Doesn’t seem that crazy to include bees. Apparently a terrestrial mollusk is already covered by the same law.
lupire 4y ago
You should reread the OP, which devotes many pages of expert analysis of 50 years of legislative and executive history. As a lawyer, you should know better than to make an underinformed unqualified statement about matters of law.
- rayiner 4y ago
  > You should reread the OP, which devotes many pages of expert analysis of 50 years of legislative and executive history. If the legislature intended “fish” to mean something other than “fish and fish-like things” they could have changed the definition. They chose not to do that. The fact that the “expert” agencies have been flouting the law for decades doesn’t change the meaning of the words on the page. Also, as the superior court observed, the legislature expressly rejected efforts to add “invertebrates” to the list of protected animals. > As a lawyer, you should know better than to make an underinformed unqualified statement about matters of law. I’m commenting on what the interpretation should be in this straightforward case, not offering an opinion on what a California court may or may not do. Here, the superior court offered a well reasoned decision finding that insects are not fish: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/klvykolmmvg/Sacramento%20County%20Superior%20Court%20Almond%20Alliance%20v%20CFGC%202020.pdf https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/klvykolmmvg/... The appellate court had to spend a lot of pages and did a lot of hand waving to overcome the clear words on the page. But that contrivance diminishes the persuasiveness of the opinion, it doesn’t enhance it!
dragonwriter 4y ago
> And the other items on the list are marine animals, like mollusks Mollusks, like the broader group of invertebrates, include both aquatic and terrestrial species. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_mollusc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_mollusc Crustaceans also include some terrestrial species (most woodlice, for instance.) So your argument premised on the other groups in the list being aquatic is fatally flawed: fish are aquatic, sure, but crustaceans and mollusks can be aquatic or terrestrial, and amphibians are...amphibious.
- rayiner 4y ago
  When the legislature included “crustaceans” in the definition of “fish” they didn’t meant “woodlice.”
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > When the legislature included “crustaceans” in the definition of “fish” they didn’t meant “woodlice.” So, your argument that they didn't meant “aquatic invertebrate” when they said “invertebrate” is based on the fact that “crustacean” and “mollusk” are unambiguously aquatic, and that the fact that these unambiguously aquatic terms were used means that “invertebrate” was implicitly restricted. But your claim that “crustacean” and “mollusk” are unambiguously aquatic relies on exactly the same unstated restriction, as both are terms that encompass terrestrial species, and your support for that is...what? Compared to the extensive analysis of the legislative history and context in the opinion supporting the opposite conclusion, this is singularly unpersuasive.