EDITORIAL: A bee is not a fish
Jul. 7—We live in a time when we are regularly being told that we are not to believe what we see, but instead to believe what we are told about what we see. Up is down, down is up.
Still, we were nonetheless surprised a California appeals court has ruled that a bumblebee can be a fish as defined by the California Endangered Species Act. Then again, it is California.
In 2018, the Defenders of Wildlife, Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and Center for Food Safety petitioned the California Fish and Game Commission to list four bumblebee species — the Crotch, Franklin's, Suckley cuckoo and Western bumblebees — for protection.
However, there was a catch. The California law only protects "native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile or plant." Insects are notably missing from the list.
But, that's only if you read the plain text of the law. Don't believe what you see.
Section 45 of the California Endangered Species Act defines a fish as a "wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian or part, spawn or ovum of any of those animals." The environmental groups argued for a reinterpretation of the code where the word "invertebrate" includes all invertebrates whether on land or in the water.
The California Fish and Game Commission responded by voting to begin the listing process in 2019 but was sued by seven agricultural groups, including the Almond Alliance of California and the California Farm Bureau Federation.
The California Superior Court ruled in favor of the farm groups in 2020, but in May the California 3rd District Court of Appeals reversed the decision, allowing bumblebees to be classified as fish.
"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," Associate Justice Ronald Robie wrote for the three-judge panel. " ... Accordingly, a terrestrial invertebrate, like each of the four bumblebee species, may be listed as an endangered or threatened species under the act."
A fish is whatever we say it is.
We think the court is mistaken and has given short shrift to the clear language California legislators used to define "fish." In 1970, when the act became law, a fish was a fish, and a bee was a bee.
When lawmakers repealed the act and replaced it in 1984, and amended it several times over the years, it did nothing that broadened the definition of fish to include insects, or provide specific protection to insects. The court acknowledges its position requires a liberal interpretation.
No kidding.
Bees and other insects could conceivably need protection. The Legislature is free to add, in equally clear language, a definition of "insect" and extend potential protection.
The issue before the court was whether the act, as written, provided the basis for that protection. It did not.
