>>23890721>it’s realLMFAO
The appellate court’s decision focused on statutory definitions under California’s Fish and Game Code, and the legislative history of amendments to those laws over the past several decades. In particular, the court reviewed the definitions of endangered species (section 2062), threatened species (section 2067), and candidate species (section 2068).
Each of these statutes provides that covered species include “native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant[.]” This portion of the code, however, does not elaborate on what qualifies as a bird, mammal, fish, and so forth. Based only on the qualified species listed above, bees and other land-dwelling invertebrates would not receive protection under the law. The court looked elsewhere in the Fish and Game Code for definitions to help clarify whether bees may qualify for protection under CESA. Importantly, the section 45 of the code defines “fish” as “a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.” (Emphasis added). According to the court, the term “invertebrate” under the definition of fish includes both aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, such as bees. The court ultimately held as follows:
[W]e agree with the Department and the Commission that the Commission may list any invertebrate as an endangered or threatened species under 2062 and 2067, if the invertebrate meets the requirements of those statutes, and thus may also designate any invertebrate as a candidate species under section 2068, if the species or subspecies may otherwise qualify as an endangered or threatened species
