Well, not here, but a court in California (The Third Appellate District, specifically) ruled that bees can be legally referred to as fish. (The article can be found here.) Now at first glance this is weird. Bees obviously aren’t fish – the court notes that in its ruling. What makes this interesting, in my opinion, is that this highlights two functions of the legal system.
One, the court ruled this way due to precedent. The Trinity bristle snail is not a fish either, but fell under a similar ruling. To summarize, these are land invertebrates, not marine invertebrates, but that is lacking from the Game and Fish code. As stated in the courts opinion, “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…” See the courts opinion here.
This brings us to the second point of interest – the interpretation of legislature. This is an example of the court and legislature working together to get at the spirit of the law even if it’s not explicitly stated. With the courts ruling, this highlights an area of the code that needs clarification and gives the Fish and Game Commission authority to act in the interim.
