This thread is turning into a GD or P&E, but I agree. The strict literal text is obvious. The legislative intent seems to be to protect endangered species, which bees are in danger of becoming. The desirable outcome is to protect bees, because they are so important for so many things.
And to repeat, the legislature considered and rejected adding “invertebrate” to the list of protected organisms, because they, including terrestrial invertebrates were already covered under the definition of fish and had been protected under the definition of fish.
Their intent is crystal clear. The whole “colloquial” argument is dumb.
You would make that guess because you didn’t read your cite:
Well, I mean, it’s not quite that simple. If a species of bee is put on the list that means there are restrictions and permits to import and possess them, or “any product thereof”, which would tangibly affect commercial apiarists ordering queens by mail order or keeping them in manmade structures, all the way down to the individual who wants to buy honey at the store. The commission’s authority to authorize individuals & organizations with permits under section 2081 does not seem to include commercial exploitation.
~Max
That’s not my read from the opinion. The legislature amended a bill in 1984 so as to remove invertebrate from the definition of endangered species, with the Senate committee specifying in a report on the bill that endangered species excludes invertebrates. “Unlike federal law, the bill would
exclude all invertebrates from eligibility for listing as threatened or endangered species.”
The Department of Fish and Wildlife, not the legislature, considered submitting a report to the legislature justifying the explicit listing of invertebrates in the definition of endangered species. But they decided that would be too confusing and that they already had the authority under the 1970 definition of “fish”.
~Max
And of course, everyone knows that the whale is an insect…
I’m not sure that’s correct. Specifically, that “invertebrates” meant “terrestrial invertebrates”. If you have a cite for that, please post it.
From the decision (page 12) (emphasis added):
The Department and the Natural Resources Agency considered the deletion of
invertebrate from the definitions of endangered and threatened species to be a minor
change, albeit one that “merits discussion,” explaining: “It was thought that adding this
term to the definitions would clarify the Commission’s authority to include invertebrates among the animals that it listed as endangered and threatened, but after further consideration, the Department has concluded that sufficient authority currently exists and that adding the term invertebrates in the legislation would only serve to confuse the matter. For example, to have included the term would have required that, for consistency, all other references in the Fish and Game Code to the various groups of animals be amended to add the term invertebrates, as necessary.”
I’m not sure but it sounds from the final sentence that they were not treating invertebrates as a separate category, which by virtue of being invertebrates were included in the law. Rather, that invertebrates were included in whatever category they might otherwise have been included in, and were not excluded by virtue of being invertebrates. Therefore, if the law was amended to make a point of saying that marine invertebrates were included with fish, then they would have to go back to all the other “various groups of animals” and specify that they too did not exclude invertebrates.
I was discussing why the CA ESA didn’t include insects. The CESA is a law passed by the State legislature in 1970. You’re quoting something subseuquently passed by a regulatory agency in 1980.
The Department quote you just posted was motivated by a 1980 Office of Administrative Law decision (the Department missed the deadline to appeal and didn’t bother refiling) that they couldn’t list butterflies as protected, so they definitely had more than marine invertebrates in mind.
~Max
In modern taxonomy, whales are actually fish. Whales are a subset of mammals, mammals are a subset of tetrapods, tetrapods are a subset of lobe-finned fish, and lobed-finned fish are a subset of fish. Or to put it another way, any taxonomic clade which includes both trout and sharks must also include whales.
So, are Africanized Killer Bees and Murder Hornets now protected species?
Where do insects fit in? I don’t really remember the clade system like I do the kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species ranking.
~Max
Based on modern molecular studies, insects (and related hexapods) are considered a subclade of Pancrustacea.
And you’d need a very large clade indeed to include bees and fish together. I think that the smallest clade containing both bees and fish would be something like “All of Animalia except for sponges and coelenterates”.
Yes, but under the right circumstances even a baseball bat can be a fish.
I always thought beefish meant muscular or stocky.
On the other hand, don’t forget Captain Beefart.