California court rules that bees are a type of fish...... - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

News stories of lesser political significance, but still of international interest.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

Forum rules: Please include a source with news articles. No stupid or joke stories. The usual forum rules also still apply.
#15231397
California court rules that bees are a type of fish in order to protect them under the state's endangered species act
Insider Business,
Mia Jankowicz
Jun 1, 2022, 11:45 AM



REMEMBER, THE LEFT IS ALL ABOUT "SCIENCE" :lol: :lol: :lol:

Image
Image for illustration purposes only. Bee pictured is not Californian. Robert Pickett/Getty Images


- Judges ruled on Tuesday that bumble bees can be classed as fish under California environmental laws.
- This unlocks protections for the state's four endangered bumble bee species.
- The ruling clarifies the state's confusing classification in its environmental protections.

A trio of judges in California said on Tuesday that bees can be legally classed as a type of fish as part of a ruling that brings added conservation protections for the endangered species.

"The issue presented here is whether the bumble bee, a terrestrial invertebrate, falls within the definition of fish," the judges wrote in their ruling. And, they concluded, it does.

Formerly, the problem for bee-lovers — and lovers of all Californian terrestrial invertebrates — was down to the way protected animals have been classified in the state's laws.

Although four different bee species were classified as endangered in 2018, land invertebrates are not explicitly protected under the state's Endangered Species Act (CESA), which protects endangered "native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant."

But CESA's Fish and Game Code, which establishes the basis on which plants and animals are protected, defines "fish" as "a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals."

Given that many of the above marine creatures aren't even fish, California has been arguing ever since about whether "invertebrates" here should apply to bees.

The appeal overturns an earlier ruling in November 2020 that was backed by major agricultural groups, Law & Crime reported. There, the judge argued that "invertebrates" in the Fish and Game Code's "fish" definition only applied to marine invertebrates, like anemones or sea urchins.

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 include bees.

The judges noted that frogs are also protected under the "fish" section, due to its inclusion of amphibians.

They also argued that land-based invertebrates have been protected under the category of "fish" under the statute in the past, such as in 1980 when the Trinity bristle snail was protected.

The judges described how California's legislature has wavered for years over whether or not to explicitly include invertebrates in the Act, presumably saving them the trouble of having to expand the definition of fish.

In one instance in 1985, the judges said, lawmakers reasoned it was unnecessary because "invertebrates were already included in the definition of fish."

"'Adding the term invertebrates in the legislation would only serve to confuse the matter,'" they cited lawmakers as saying.

"It is a great day for California's bumble bees," said Pamela Flick, California Program Director at Defenders of Wildlife, one of the groups that brought the appeal, in a press statement following the ruling.

https://www.insider.com/bees-officially ... ies-2022-6
#15231399
Patrickov wrote:I only want to ask one question.

Is there no such thing in Republican controlled state judiciaries?



1) Not in Kalifornya. The California State legislature has been democrap controlled since 1970, except for 1995-1996.

2) Is a bee a fish?

3) This illustrates the leftists mentality for breaking ANY rule, changing any definition, and use bureaucracies and courts to push their worldview forward.

For them, the ends always justify the means. For them, 1+1 =/= 2
#15231405
BlutoSays wrote:This illustrates the leftists mentality for breaking ANY rule, changing any definition, and use bureaucracies and courts to push their worldview forward.

For them, the ends always justify the means. For them, 1+1 =/= 2



Indeed my question was more about this point.

You assert that only Democrats do this nonsense and Republicans don't.
And you want us to vote Republicans to get rid of these Democrats.

Is this an accurate description of your hidden message?
#15231410
I don't have hidden messages. I'm open about my beliefs. All my messages are out in the open for anyone to shoot at! :lol:

And if you notice, I post articles initially without commentary.

But in this case, I couldn't help myself: REMEMBER, THE LEFT IS ALL ABOUT "SCIENCE" :lol:
#15231462
ness31 wrote:Well if a bird is a dinosaur a bee can surely be a fish :D

Actually, all vertebrates (including humans) are fish. Bees, of course, are not vertebrates and are therefore not fish. The problem is that the legislation, as written, only protects vertebrates and plants. The legal problem then arises of how to protect invertebrates without rewriting the legislation. Simple - just legally define bees as fish. These are not political shenanigans, these are legal shenanigans. And if a corporation can be legally defined to be a person, then why can't a bee be legally defined to be a fish? Lol.
#15231488
Potemkin wrote:Actually, all vertebrates (including humans) are fish. Bees, of course, are not vertebrates and are therefore not fish. The problem is that the legislation, as written, only protects vertebrates and plants. The legal problem then arises of how to protect invertebrates without rewriting the legislation. Simple - just legally define bees as fish. These are not political shenanigans, these are legal shenanigans. And if a corporation can be legally defined to be a person, then why can't a bee be legally defined to be a fish? Lol.


Because if ever words matter surely it’s in law? Wrong definitions in law can be argued, and invalidated - as they should be. So yeah, we might want to get our phylogenies right if we’re trying to protect animals. Now, because I’m not a lawyer I don’t have to care so much if I’ve used phylogeny correctly….but god damnit, lawmakers should!

Edit - regarding your point about corporations….it could potentially be their undoing :)
#15231492
Rancid wrote:Bluto and Scamp are certainly this way.

Probably because they don't have the balls to just say what they want to say. Pussies, basically.


That's not my concern.

My concern is that I sometimes agree with them and it hurts me to see they act like "they don't believe what they say".

If I am to say what I say at least say it proudly. I will even express approval for Nazism if the situation calls for it. Support for (corrupt) Republicans is, at least by comparison, NOT something to feel shame about.

Bite me.
#15231493
Potemkin wrote:Actually, all vertebrates (including humans) are fish. Bees, of course, are not vertebrates and are therefore not fish. The problem is that the legislation, as written, only protects vertebrates and plants. The legal problem then arises of how to protect invertebrates without rewriting the legislation. Simple - just legally define bees as fish. These are not political shenanigans, these are legal shenanigans. And if a corporation can be legally defined to be a person, then why can't a bee be legally defined to be a fish? Lol.


The right way to change the law is to include bees in the code as-is. The measure that has taken should be seen at best as a stop-gap.

The only problem about the OP is that he actually wants to say something else (Republicans are better and we should vote for them) and he should have just said it.
#15231577
ness31 wrote:Because if ever words matter surely it’s in law? Wrong definitions in law can be argued, and invalidated - as they should be. So yeah, we might want to get our phylogenies right if we’re trying to protect animals. Now, because I’m not a lawyer I don’t have to care so much if I’ve used phylogeny correctly….but god damnit, lawmakers should!

Why? Serious question. The legal code is ultimately concerned only with itself, not reality. It forms a logical, self-consistent system which only has to agree with itself. If it doesn’t fit reality, then just redefine a few words so it does. After all, why not? The word “bee” in the legal code does not have to correspond with the word “bee” as it is commonly used in the English language, just as in physics the word “force” does not have to correspond with the word “force” as it is commonly used in the English language. In fact, it cannot do so, if physics is to work as a science. The legal code appears to be written in English, but it fact it actually isn’t. It’s written in Legalese. It must therefore be interpreted. This is why we have lawyers and judges. Lol. :)

Edit - regarding your point about corporations….it could potentially be their undoing :)

Really? How so?
#15231586
Patrickov wrote:The right way to change the law is to include bees in the code as-is. The measure that has taken should be seen at best as a stop-gap.

It may be “right”, but in fact it’s the most difficult way of solving the problem. Changing the law is difficult, whereas redefining one’s terms is easy. Judges and lawyers do this all the time; there’s nothing unusual about it. And it has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. As I said, these are legal shenanigans, not political shenanigans.

The only problem about the OP is that he actually wants to say something else (Republicans are better and we should vote for them) and he should have just said it.

Most people don’t really believe what they say - or, more accurately, they haven’t thought through all the implications of what they say, and often actively refuse to do so. @BlutoSays is not unusual in that regard. And again, this has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans - all sides of the political spectrum do the same thing. It’s just how (most) human beings behave, of whatever political persuasion.
#15231599
Potemkin wrote:Most people don’t really believe what they say - or, more accurately, they haven’t thought through all the implications of what they say, and often actively refuse to do so.


I do not think I am (or maybe even you are) exceptional to this either, but at least I hope all of us can be more aware of this.

What I want to tell the likes of BlutoSays is that, it's nothing wrong to support a less agreeable group of politicians out of spite against their opponents. Whether others agree with me is another matter, but if both admitting it and denying it makes me stupid, at least I want to be honest to myself.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Of course, and I'm not talking about Hamas or the[…]

https://twitter.com/DSAWorkingMass/status/17842152[…]

Yes, try meditating ALONE in nature since people […]

I spent literal months researching on the many ac[…]