Bees are fish

[SpacemanSpiff_II]

@Thing.Fish

I don’t care enough to research it, but if LHoD’s quote in post 6 is accurate, the law explicitly defines invertebrates (as well as several other things that aren’t fish) as being fish.

In context, “invertebrates” was referring to marine invertebrates. As the relevant Departments stated in support of the change to add “invertebrates” to the definition, this would allow “species such as starfish, sea urchins, sponges and worms”, and “invertebrates, such as starfish, sea urchins, anemones, jellyfish and sponges”.

The word “marine” was probably not added simply because it was obvious, and it never occured to anyone that someday terrestrial insects would be defined as fish.

In any event, regardless of how compelling you personally think this definition is, it’s worth noting that the people who actually wrote the decision seemed to be relying on a liberal interpretation in line with the purpose of the law, as they wrote several times in the decision.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@SpacemanSpiff_II

it’s worth noting that the people who actually wrote the decision seemed to be relying on a liberal interpretation in line with the purpose of the law,

How do you think a strict constructionist would interpret a law that explicitly states that “[f]ish’ means a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals”? To suggest that a strict constuctionist would declare that a definition that includes invertebrates ought to exclude invertebrates boggles the mind.

It’s a poorly written law, but I thought conservative judicial thought gave deference to the language of the law.

[SpacemanSpiff_II]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

How do you think a strict constructionist would interpret a law that explicitly states that “[f]ish’ means a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals”? To suggest that a strict constuctionist would declare that a definition that includes invertebrates ought to exclude invertebrates boggles the mind.

It would include marine/aquatic invertebrates and exclude terrestrial invertebrates.

[Yllaria]

In addition to beavers and capybaras, barnacle geese were considered to be fish. It’s less of a jump from geese to bees than from beavers to bees.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@SpacemanSpiff_II

It would include marine/aquatic invertebrates and exclude terrestrial invertebrates.

So, a strict constructionist would add language to the statute, rather than interpreting the statute as written?

[SpacemanSpiff_II]

Interpreting “fish” to exclude terrestrial invertebrates does not require adding any language, just understanding the very obvious context. Including terrestrial invertebrates in the word “fish” is not “interpreting the statute as written”.

As above, the decision itself is explicit that they are interpreting the statute liberally in line with the purpose of the law. (You left this off when you quoted me, for some reason.) I don’t think it makes sense to argue that the decision relies on the words “as written” when the authors of the decision themselves stated otherwise.

[Max_S]

@Thing.Fish

I don’t care enough to research it, but if LHoD’s quote in post 6 is accurate

When bees are deciding where to build a new hive, each individual bee will go out and independently survey the prospective site, like a home buyer taking a tour, then return to the hive. If the bee liked the site, she will do a little dance that communicates how to get there. Once enough bees are dancing for one site, the whole hive will swarm and set off to their new home.

Thing.Fish is not, apparently, a bee; he is ironically uninterested in independently verifying whether bees are in fact fish under the laws of California. A shame, but this being the Straight Dope Message Board, is it not our mission to fight ignorance?

The opinion reads in part,

The California Endangered Species Act (Act) (Fish & G. Code,¹ § 2050 et seq.)
directs the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to “establish a list of endangered
species and a list of threatened species.” (§ 2070.) The issue presented here is whether
the bumble bee, a terrestrial invertebrate, falls within the definition of fish, as that term is
used in the definitions of endangered species in section 2062, threatened species in
section 2067, and candidate species (i.e., species being considered for listing as
endangered or threatened species) in section 2068 of the Act.

We first reaffirm and expand upon our conclusion in California Forestry
Association that section 45 defines fish as the term is used in sections 2062, 2067, and
2068 of the Act, by application of section 2. (California Forestry Assn. v. California
Fish & Game Commission (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1535, 1552 (California Forestry
Assn.).) That means the Commission has the authority to list an invertebrate as an
endangered or threatened species. We next consider whether the Commission’s authority
is limited to listing only aquatic invertebrates. We conclude the answer is, “no.”
Although the term fish is colloquially and commonly understood to refer to aquatic
species, the term of art employed by the Legislature in the definition of fish in section 45
is not so limited.

[…]

---

¹ Undesignated section references are to the Fish and Game Code. References to
the code are to the Fish and Game Code.

As for the straight dope, California’s Fish and Game Code is available online.

Here are § 2 and 45,

2. Unless the provisions or the context otherwise requires, the definitions in this chapter govern the construction of this code and all regulations adopted under this code.

[…]

45. “Fish” means a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.

Here are § 2062, 2067, and 2068,

2062. “Endangered species” means a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease. Any species determined by the commission as “endangered” on or before January 1, 1985, is an “endangered species.”

[…]

2067. “Threatened species” means a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by this chapter. Any animal determined by the commission as “rare” on or before January 1, 1985, is a “threatened species.”

2068. “Candidate species” means a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the commission has formally noticed as being under review by the department for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either list.

Here is § 2070

2070. The commission shall establish a list of endangered species and a list of threatened species. The commission shall add or remove species from either list if it finds, upon the receipt of sufficient scientific information pursuant to this article, and based solely upon the best available scientific information, that the action is warranted.

~Max

[RitterSport]

Weird that it includes amphibian in the definition of fish and in the list of living things that can be protected.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@SpacemanSpiff_II

(You left this off when you quoted me, for some reason.)

This sort of snarky insinuation of dishonesty is itself dishonest. I left out a shitload of stuff you wrote, because you wrote a lot of irrelevant stuff, and I was focusing on the relevant stuff you wrote.

@SpacemanSpiff_II

Interpreting “fish” to exclude terrestrial invertebrates does not require adding any language, just understanding the very obvious context.

This is 100% false. Interpreting “invertebrates” to exclude “terrestrial invertebrates” requires inserting language. This is obvious and incontrovertible. The word “terrestrial” isn’t in the text, so if you want the word “invertebrates” to be modified to exclude terrestrial ones, you gotta add language. It’s damn near Orwellian to argue that a strict reading of a tesxt requires reading words that aren’t in the text.

It so happens that I’m a fan of interpreting laws according to what makes sense, not according to strict construction, so I disagree with this judge’s interpretation. But that’s because I’m a liberal.

@RitterSport

Weird that it includes amphibian in the definition of fish and in the list of living things that can be protected.

It’s only weird if you think the law is well-written. That definition is a hot mess: it includes “crustaceans” and “invertebrates,” as though crustaceans have a backbone.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Worth noting, also, this language:

The Legislature further added express language incorporating the Commission’s prior endangered and rare animal listings, including the listing of a terrestrial mollusk and invertebrate as a threatened species,
within the definitions of endangered and threatened species in sections 2062 and 2067.

It’s talking about what happened when the definition was revised. That is, they discussed adding “invertebrate” to the definition, but decided not to, given that invertebrates had previously been protected without requiring that language. They formalized the list of threatened/endangered species.

Arguing that they intended only to protect marine invertebrates isn’t a nod to context; it’s completely ignoring context.

[Max_S]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

That definition is a hot mess: it includes “crustaceans” and “invertebrates,” as though crustaceans have a backbone.

I’m inclined to agree. “fish” as used anywhere in the Fish and Game Code is simply a symbol, a placeholder pointing to section 45, totally disassociated from the normal connotations of the word as it appears in colloquial usage.

We can use simple substitution:

The commission shall establish a list of endangered species […]

to

The commission shall establish a list of native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease

to

The commission shall establish a list of native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, (wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals), amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease

to

The commission shall establish a list of native species or subspecies of […] invertebrate […] which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease

~Max

[Thing.Fish]

And this is the California Endangered Species Act, not the California Marine Endangered Species Act. Spiff’s interpretation would seem to imply that the Legislature intended to grant no protection to any non-marine species, which is clearly absurd. So, from either the “legislative intent” point of view or the “strict constructionist” point of view, it appears the judge’s interpretation was correct.

But jeez, that’s a horribly written law.

[SpacemanSpiff_II]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

This sort of snarky insinuation of dishonesty is itself dishonest. I left out a shitload of stuff you wrote, because you wrote a lot of irrelevant stuff, and I was focusing on the relevant stuff you wrote.

You changed the point I was making by omitting parts of the sentence you were quoting. I wrote (emphasis added) “In any event, regardless of how compelling you personally think this definition is, it’s worth noting that the people who actually wrote the decision seemed to be relying on a liberal interpretation in line with the purpose of the law, as they wrote several times in the decision”. My point was that the decision itself was pretty clear that it was based on a liberal interpretation and the purpose of the law. By omitting the bold parts, you changed it to look like just my own assessment of what they were doing, which you could then more easily dispute.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Interpreting “invertebrates” to exclude “terrestrial invertebrates” requires inserting language. This is obvious and incontrovertible. The word “terrestrial” isn’t in the text, so if you want the word “invertebrates” to be modified to exclude terrestrial ones, you gotta add language. It’s damn near Orwellian to argue that a strict reading of a tesxt requires reading words that aren’t in the text.

The word “fish” excludes terrestrial creatures, and that word is already in the text.

[SpacemanSpiff_II]

@Thing.Fish

And this is the California Endangered Species Act, not the California Marine Endangered Species Act. Spiff’s interpretation would seem to imply that the Legislature intended to grant no protection to any non-marine species, which is clearly absurd.

It’s called the California Endangered Species Act, not the California Marine Endangered Species Act because it protects “‘birds, mammals, fish, amphibia, or reptiles”.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@SpacemanSpiff_II

The word “fish” excludes terrestrial creatures,

The word “fish” also excludes amphibians, crustaceans, and other invertebrates. Do you understand what “term of art” means here? For that matter, do you understand what “liberal” means in this context?

If you really want me to respond to your misunderstanding of “liberal” in this opinion, I can, but that seems such a silly misunderstanding as to be irrelevant.

[Thing.Fish]

@SpacemanSpiff_II

The word “fish” excludes terrestrial creatures, and that word is already in the text.

I don’t see that exclusion spelled out in Section 45, which for this purpose takes precedent over the ordinary common sense definition of “fish”.

Seriously, ARE you contending that the California ESA doesn’t apply to land-dwelling animals at all? Or that the Legislature’s failure to specifically include insects was due to a deliberate intention to exclude them, rather than to their inability to write clearly?

[SpacemanSpiff_II]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

The word “fish” also excludes amphibians, crustaceans, and other invertebrates.

Right, but they are more closely associated with “fish” from a colloquial and organizational standpoint since they are marine creatures.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Do you understand what “term of art” means here?

As you defined it earlier.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

For that matter, do you understand what “liberal” means in this context?

Expansive.

[SpacemanSpiff_II]

@Thing.Fish

Seriously, ARE you contending that the California ESA doesn’t apply to land-dwelling animals at all?

I adressed this earlier (post #34). You may have missed it.

@Thing.Fish

Or that the Legislature’s failure to specifically include insects was due to a deliberate intention to exclude them, rather than to their inability to write clearly?

I would guess at the time the law was written, there weren’t any endangered insects that the public wanted protected.

[Thing.Fish]

I mean, how many ways are there to interpret a statute?

You can go by the strict, literal text of the statute.
You can try to discern legislative intent.
You can try to arrive at the outcome that common sense says is desirable and work backwards to justify it.

Seems to me like all three methods here point to the conclusion that the ruling was correct.

Not sure what you’d call the theory that “we go by the literal text, but only by the ordinary, colloquial sense of the words, even in cases where the legislature has specified that they intended to define it otherwise”. I guess it would be a subset of #3 with the “common sense” specifier removed.

[running_coach]

@SpacemanSpiff_II

California court rules that bees are a type of fish in order to protect them under the state’s endangered species act (msn.com)

But on Tuesday’s appeal, the judges argued that they are obliged to “liberally” interpret CESA’s terms in order to make sure it can be effective.

“Although the term fish is colloquially and commonly understood to refer to aquatic species,” the judges said, legislative jargon in this case could be justified in expanding the definition to fish.

They’re a species of fish known as the Dobee Gill-less.