California court rules that bees are a type of fish in order to protect them under the state's endangered species act.
-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.
“Clarifies”. Only in California would this be considered clarifying.
"'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.
This reminds me of something I read this morning from The Dispatch:
People like “natural gas.” People don’t like “methane.” If everyone started calling “natural gas,” “methane,” then people would no longer approve of natural gas/methane.
This is a view of language that is increasingly popular among progressive activists. People disagree with us because of branding, not because of substance.
Let me start by explaining what’s going to happen to you if you decide in your actual life to call natural gas “fossil gas.”
“Blah blah blah fossil gas”
“What is fossil gas?
“Natural gas but let me tell you why I call it fossil gas”
And that person is then going to leave and never come back. They aren’t your friend anymore. They hate you. You used a term you hoped they didn’t know just so they would have to ask you to explain it so you could have an opportunity to give them a speech.
It’s like when people use Latin terms and then immediately explain what it means in English. Why are you using this term you expect me not to know? Is this a Latin class? Language is supposed to be a way that people communicate meaning from one party to another. If someone asks you to bring them some fruit and you bring them a tomato and they say “I asked for fruit” and you say “well technically tomato is a fruit,” you’re a - .
I understand the temptation to argue about what people should call natural gas. If you are a climate activist, you are probably very frustrated with the government’s lack of progress on the issue. You’ve screamed, you’ve yelled, you’ve pleaded, you’ve marched, you’ve sailed across the sea, and yet still things haven’t gone your way. It can feel like you have no ability to create the change you think is so urgently required. You might find solace in projecting your frustration onto things you think you actually can affect, like what words people use.
Well after all, there are flying fish and there are fish that sting, and there are yellow and black striped fish, and fish with antennae, and gills could look like wings at times. And judges aren't supposed to be scientists are they? But it still looks very fishy to me.
California court rules that bees are a type of fish in order to protect them under the state's endangered species act.
-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.
“Clarifies”. Only in California would this be considered clarifying.
"'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.
ohio jones wrote: ↑Wed Jun 01, 2022 3:11 pm
Well after all, there are flying fish and there are fish that sting, and there are yellow and black striped fish, and fish with antennae, and gills could look like wings at times. And judges aren't supposed to be scientists are they? But it still looks very fishy to me.
I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. Thanks for the medicine!
Soloist wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 1:41 am
well... I mean... we have sheep head swimming in the water, cat fish, dog fish, lion fish... why not bee fish?
To be fair, this wasn’t really the court. It was a poorly written regulation.
The California regulations governing endangered species defined the term “fish” very broadly to include all manner of invertebrates and other species that were, in fact, not of three biological or scientific classes of fish.
The court simply said: “Well indeed, if your regulations define the term “fish” broadly enough to include insects and other invertebrates, then bumblebees do, in fact, fall under that definition”
That is frankly how the law always works in pretty much any context. Legal definitions are stretched to include things that don’t make sense in other contexts. Take the term “farm”. That word is also stretched beyond all reasonable meaning of the term when it comes to things like tax breaks and regulation. There are “farms” that are nothing more than corporate shells incorporated on a sheet of paper in Delaware for the purpose of obtaining a tax break. They grow no crops, have no land, and do not even exist in the physical world. But the law says they are “farms” according to whatever definition of the term is used in that particular tax regulation. The term “church” is another such example.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
