Bees Are 'Fish' Under Calif. Endangered Species Act - State Court (reuters.com) 130
Bumblebees are eligible for protection as endangered or threatened "fish" under California law, a state appeals court held in a win for environmental groups and the state's Fish and Game Commission. From a report: The Sacramento-based California Court of Appeal reversed a lower court's ruling Tuesday for seven agricultural groups who argued that the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) expressly protects only "birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and plants" -- not insects.
While "fish" is "commonly understood to refer to aquatic species, the term of art employed by the Legislature ... is not so limited," Associate Justice Ronald Robie wrote for the appeals court. CESA itself does not define "fish," but the law is part of the California Fish and Game Code. The code's definition includes any "mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate (or) amphibian," Robie wrote. All those categories "encompass terrestrial and aquatic species," and the state legislature has already approved the listing of at least one land-based mollusk, the opinion said.
While "fish" is "commonly understood to refer to aquatic species, the term of art employed by the Legislature ... is not so limited," Associate Justice Ronald Robie wrote for the appeals court. CESA itself does not define "fish," but the law is part of the California Fish and Game Code. The code's definition includes any "mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate (or) amphibian," Robie wrote. All those categories "encompass terrestrial and aquatic species," and the state legislature has already approved the listing of at least one land-based mollusk, the opinion said.
hmmm I wonder... (Score:4, Funny)
What bait should I use?
Re:hmmm I wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:hmmm I wonder... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The summary and title are wrong. The law says "invertebrate" so it's nonsense for the title writer to say "bees are fish". It's turning a normal story into click-bait for the anti-regulation types.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
... and people say courts don't apply laws blindly in ridiculous ways, as an argument against automating legal processes or against silly arguments like "it says invertebrates are fish, so that must mean bees are fish!"
Conversely, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that fish are not tangible objects [cornell.edu], so if you get caught with undersized bees in your boat, you can throw them overboard with breaking federal law.
Re: (Score:3)
*Legally*, "fish" in many contexts are any economically valuable animal -- e.g. lobsters, clams, oysters and potentially whales are "fish" with respect to regulations. For example, check out this NOAA Inforgraphic [noaa.gov].
I once knew a biologist who testified in an Islamic court in favor of the notion that sea turtles should be considered fish *for the purposes of Islamic law*. While sea turtles are undoubtedly *reptiles* for the purposes of scientific taxonomy, law -- religious or secular -- doesn't necessarily
Re: (Score:2)
California is endangered of being to costly to liv (Score:1)
California is endangered of being to costly to live
Good explaination of why (Score:3, Informative)
Also if you're not watching Beau's coverage of the Ukraine war you should be.
Re: (Score:3)
Or one could just read the ruling itself [ca.gov].
The short of it is that the legislature, perhaps when drunk, decided to define invertebrates as fish in the law instead of just adding them separately. This court decided that "invertebrates" should be interpreted broadly, rather than limiting the term to aquatic vertebrates, so now bees are "fish" as far as this law is concerned.
Yes, they should probably fix the wording because this is confusing and absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
The law was written that way intentionally in order to direct enforcement to be a function of the Department of Fish and Game.
The court ruling follows the logic of the law... even if the logic is a bit twisted.
Re: Good explaination of why (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good explaination of why (Score:5, Informative)
Not likely, because precedent was set way back in the 70s and 80s to classify invertebrates under "fish" including snails.
And given the law is working exactly as intended, you don't want to tinker with the law, because the instant you start to tinker, everyone wants to add their own touches to it, so instead of making a simple edit, you now get a law where everyone has their own little addition to it.
Steve Lehto, a laywer, explains the ruling in far more detail [youtube.com]. First, the classification comes under California's Endangered Species Act, and the judicial rule is that laws that remedy a situation generally get interpreted very liberally because the goal is to capture as much of the harmed parties as possible. In this case, classifying the endangered bumblebees as invertebrates which are covered by the law under "fish" but precedent set in the 80s has expanded to include non-aquatic species.
It's a click-baity title, but once the details are examined it's far less than it is - basically those 4 species of bumblebees are to be protected as endangered species and the ruling means that it gets the protections of the act.
Honestly, the video goes through the law and legal issues far better.
Re: Good explaination of why (Score:2)
I'm not sure I would call it judicial activism just because the judge is ruling based on the intent of the law rather than the wording. But I totally agree that the law should be fixed - the judicial shouldn't have to legislate because the legislative branch made a poorly worded law.
Would it be legal for the judge to declare that bees are protected (by falling under "fish"), but the legislature has two years to correct the law or else it reverts back to bees not being protected? More generally are there an
Re: Good explaination of why (Score:2)
I'm not sure I would call it judicial activism just because the judge is ruling based on the intent of the law rather than the wording.
That's pretty much the definition of Judicial Activism. Laws should not be open to broad interpretation, it creates confusion and leads to unequal application. If the Law has to be "interpreted" to achieve its "intent" then it's a bad law and needs to be thrown out and re-written.
Re: (Score:2)
If the Law has to be "interpreted" to achieve its "intent" then it's a bad law and needs to be thrown out and re-written.
So you're advocating for the US Constitution to be thrown and and re-written? Because it's very open to broad interpetation.
Re: (Score:2)
No, judicial activism is when the court uses the letter of the law to defy it's clear intent.
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong about this: the judge is interpreting the law as written. The law contains its own definition of fish and that definition includes invertebrates. There is no limitation on the types of invertebrates, so bees are included.
Re: (Score:2)
Fixing the law would have unintended consequences.
The law was written to put enforcement actions under the purview of the Department of Fish and Game. Changing the law to list bumblebees (and snails and slugs and whatever else...) as separate from fish would place enforcement outside the purview of the Department of Fish and Game... unless we then expand the responsibilities of the Department of Fish and Game. That is a slippery slope that risks snowballing into something worse than misclassifying bumbleb
Re: (Score:2)
What? The law indicates invertebrates. The Californian assembly placed them under the category "fish". The judges pointed out, "invertebrates = bee" which is correct scientifically and that clearly the assembly members are not very good scientist. If it was just fish and that's it, maybe you have an argument, but the State assembly has placed insects under fish, judges just working with the BS the assembly gave them.
If anything, go after California's weird ass assembly members. This is very much not ju
Re: (Score:2)
Judicial activism at its worst.
The appeals court should overrule this opinion and tell the legislature to amend the law if bees should be included.
Ironically, if the text of the law specifically labels as fish some organisms that people on the street wouldn't call fish, then using the vernacular to overrule the text of the law and also the obvious and clear intent of the legislators would be judicial activism.
Of course, "judicial activism", "states' rights", "stare decisis", etc. are such fluid terms in today's world that they often mean diametrically opposing things at the same time in different people's mind, where each of those people are convinced
Re: (Score:3)
Judicial activism at its worst.
The appeals court should overrule this opinion and tell the legislature to amend the law if bees should be included.
Not at all, this is the judiciary following the letter of the law as written.
Programmers should appreciate this result. "Fish" is defined to include "invertebrates" without limitation. "Bees" are "invertebrates". Therefore, "bees" are "fish". If "fish" was defined only as "aquatic invertebrates", that wouldn't include "bees", but it wasn't.
The legislature, if they didn't intend this, is free to amend the law to exclude terrestrial vertebrates. The judiciary, however, is following the law as written.
Your
Re: (Score:2)
right here [youtube.com]
Also if you're not watching Beau's coverage of the Ukraine war you should be.
Just in case you don't feel like watching the video, it's because California's wildlife protection law lists invertebrates under the category of fish. Bees are invertebrates ergo falling under the legal classification as fish. This is not the first time that a land invertebrate has been protected in this fashion. It has been proposed to Californian legislators that invertebrates should be their own classification, but they've stated that it would be "more confusing".
I'm generally a fan of California, the
Fish don't exist. (Score:3)
Look it up.
Re:Fish don't exist. (Score:5, Funny)
Of course fish exist. I saw one buzzing around the other day and was afraid it might sting me.
Birds don't exist. (Score:2)
Fish exist. Birds don't.
https://birdsarentreal.com/pag... [birdsarentreal.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you mean "there's no such thing as a fish". It's because in a monophyletic view of life on earth, every quadruped that descended from fish, from salamanders to dinosaurs to us, should count as a fish, if there is in fact such a thing as a fish.
A polyphyletic view is more flexible, allowing for cutouts on the tree of life. It's less logically consistent, though.
Re: (Score:3)
It was reported (some years ago, so things may have changed/been clarified) that after a lifetime studying fish the biologist Stephen Jay Gould concluded that there was no such thing as a fish. He reasoned that although there are many sea creatures, most of them are not closely related to each other. For example, a salmon is more closely related to a camel than it is to a hagfish.
Reminds me of the old autopsy joke⦠(Score:5, Funny)
Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for blood pressure?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for breathing?
A: No.
Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy? A: No.
Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Q: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.
Missing details in TFS (Score:3)
Unfortunately TFS cuts off the text that follows in TFA:
“Accordingly, a terrestrial invertebrate, like each of the four bumblebee species, may be listed as an endangered or threatened species,” Robie wrote, joined by Acting Presiding Justice Cole Blease and Associate Justice Andrea Lynn Hoch.
[emphasis mine.] Let's spell it out:
- CESA does not define what a "fish" is, so the definition of this term falls to the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC)
- CFGC defines "fish" as "mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate (or) amphibian" with no specific requirement that the organism live in water
- bees are terrestrial invertebrates
- therefore bees may not be fish in the customary sense, but definitionally they fall into the bailiwick of the CFGC and CESA
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
While you are technically correct, it is the spirit of the law that is more important than the letter of the law. Nobody in their right mind would use the word "fish" and intentionally mean "bees".
This case is now opening up, with a clear precedent, a lot of latitude for people to argue that laws that apply to "men" do not apply to women. That a law that applies to "people" does not apply to a "person", etc.
I agree with the goals of their ruling, but their means to legislate via court ruling are laughable
Re:Missing details in TFS (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody in their right mind would use the word "fish" and intentionally mean "bees".
Likewise, nobody in their right mind would use the word "fish" and intentionally mean "invertebrate". This follows from the fact that fish, by definition, are vertebrates. However, the law in question explicitly states that the term "fish" includes "invertebrates".
We can only conclude that the lawmakers who wrote this were not in their right minds.
Since laws are passed by a simple vote, without the requirement that the authors were actually in their right minds, the court correctly determined that the bees are fish under the laws in force.
Re: (Score:2)
We can only conclude that the lawmakers who wrote this were not in their right minds.
I'm inclined to agree with Freedom Bug, who said this in a comment below:
[T]hey use the word "fish" rather than writing "fish, mollusk, crustacean, inverterbrate, amphibian etc" over and over again. You'd do the same./quote>
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Missing details in TFS (Score:2)
Technically correct is the best form of correct.
Re: (Score:3)
Arguments about the meaning of "person" already happen all the time in court rooms; that's one of the favourite topics of the sovereign citizen [wikipedia.org] fringe movement. But unlike this case, where a judge decided to essentially hotfix an oversight by legislators who enumerated a bunch of things when they should've just said "animals," those never go anywhere, because they pertain to fairly robust concepts about which legal professionals have a strong consensus. (Or, at least, until sentient AIs start demanding righ
Re: (Score:2)
The judge did nothing of the kind. The law has its own definition of "fish" and so that definition is used for the purposes of this particular law instead of a dictionary definition of "fish". The definition of fish in the law includes invertebrates, which includes bees.
The judge merely applied the law as written.
Re: (Score:2)
[*] You're a biologist... insects are crustaceans, right? I know it's gone back and forth over the years, is there an essentially definitive answer?
The modern consensus is indeed that hexapods (including insects) evolved from crustaceans. The competing theory was that hexapods were more closely related to myriapods (centipedes and millipedes); the debate was more or less settled around 2010 through molecular evidence (in greybeard terms, using diff on the genomes and reconstructing a revision tree.)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah thanks! I saw that paper, but I wasn't sure if the debate ended there or if there was more in the general body of knowledge. I'm spent some time in academia, so I'm aware of the difference between what papers say ad what scientists in the area seem to know too :)
Re: (Score:2)
While you are technically correct, it is the spirit of the law that is more important than the letter of the law. Nobody in their right mind would use the word "fish" and intentionally mean "bees".
Do you honestly believe that the spirit of a law to protect endangered species is that only certain classes of animals should be eligible for protection?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the Department of Fish and Game is supposed to be regulating, let's see.... it's around here somewhere.... oh right, "Fish and Game", of which bees are neither.
This is a power-grab expansion of their authority, which the lower court saw through to the obvious, that the intent of the law was to allow them to regulate fish and other fish-like creatures which live in underwater, but was poorly drafted, not that the legislature intended to widen the scope of "Fish and Game" regulations to every insect, but
Re: (Score:2)
The power grab is by the department suddenly deciding that bees fall under their mandate, not the ambiguous language in the law. So the former is recent (2019), the latter is from 1970.
Amazing how 49 years later the department discovers it had this power to declare endangered insects on land all along and just never bothered to before....
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody in their right mind would use the word 'fish' and intentionally mean 'tetrapods', and yet:
"Fishes are a paraphyletic group: that is, any clade containing all fish also contains the tetrapods, which are not fish (though they include fish-shaped forms, such as Whales and Dolphins or the extinct ichthyosaurs, which acquired a fish-like body shape due to secondary aquatic adaptation, see evolution of cetaceans)."
Moreover:
"However, traditionally fish (pisces or ichthyes) are rendered paraphyletic by exclu
Re: (Score:2)
The summary is click bait. Again we see a lot of commenters in here who never made it past the title.
Molluscs aren't fish either. But if a lobster can be protected under that law then so can bees.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's spell it out: "You need a Stupid-Law / Human dictionary if you ever want to fight against them".
Science and the Law (Score:2)
Legally, at least in CA, bees are fish, for species protection reasons, like the SCOTUS ruled that tomatoes, which are botanically fruits, are vegetables, for tariff protection reasons [businessinsider.com]. Seems like legislatures could have simply amended the laws rather than twisting things to suit, but I guess they're lazy.
Re:Science and the Law (Score:4, Insightful)
vegetable is defined as: a plant or part of a plant used as food, typically as accompaniment to meat or fish, such as a cabbage, potato, carrot, or bean.
vegetables and fruits are not mutually exclusive, and more importantly, the word vegetable has absolutely zero meaning botanically.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see what the Reagan administration has to say on the subject, the standard upon which modern conservatives strive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The tariff law in this case specifically applied to vegetables and not fruits. Botanically, tomatoes are fruits, but someone wanted their money, so they ignored the that. Not saying you're wrong about the culinary aspect of vegetable and tomato, but that wasn't what the case was really about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ROFLcoptering
By all means, level up
Re: (Score:2)
Just sayin.
Re: (Score:2)
See I can twist legal reasoning too.
Re: (Score:2)
The law very clearly defines "fish" to include bees. The judge merely applied the law as written.
Take your faux outrage to Capitol, where legislators decided to define "fish" in such a way as to include bees.
Re: (Score:2)
And in this case, the law clearly says "invertebrates". QED, the legislators already had the language clarified.
Hang legislating judges (Score:2)
Law works on precedents and restraints When you play fast and loose with the interpretations than you can also get interpretations which justify ha
Re:Hang legislating judges (Score:5, Insightful)
As for legislating from the bench, sure, you would have an argument except for the fact that the counts have previously asked the legislator to clarify the law already. Their response? No, it is working as intended. So, this is not the courts misinterpreting the law. They have already gotten the go ahead to interpret it this same way. As another posted said: "Technically correct is the best form of correct." I would go even further and say, especially in the case of a law, technically correct is the only correct. You cannot be technically wrong and also correct. Either way, legislators often are not lawyers or scientists or even that good at their jobs, regardless of what legislator they are part of or what state or country they are in. Humans just suck in general. Why do you think we have to have these laws protecting everything, so we do not ruin it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If judges are legislating from the bench
They're not. The law says a bunch of things are classified as 'fish' that clearly aren't fish. It's a matter of convenience that is neither confusing nor harmful.
the punishment for insurrection is hanging
I'm going to go with "apparently not".
Though if you're to be hanged, it's better to be hanged for the sake of the bees.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the punishment for being a militant sounding, culture war, alarmist?
I'm asking for a friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Only in jurisdictions that use precedents allow judges to have some legislative power. Those that don't force judges to interpret laws as written, which means the legislative body must somewhat competent if they want laws to be enforced the way they intended.
The legislators tried for a comprehensive list - (Score:5, Insightful)
..and failed. Now the courts try to fix that by shoehorning the things they forgot into the categories they remembered. It is highly unlikely they meant to exclude endangered insects, they just forgot them.
Now a sane response would be to amend the act and replace the comprehensive list with a more generic statement that includes all living things.
Re: (Score:3)
I think this is a pretty sane response: clearly the law is there to protect endangered animals. Corporations are trying to find loopholes "technically the law says fish only and they're not fish so you must let us slaughter endangered species work abandon" and the court's response is "cute. No.".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the job of courts is not to fix logic errors in statutory laws. They can interpret a law to ignore/correct drafting errors [wikipedia.org], but this decision is contrary to the interpretive canon of noscitur a sociis [bnblegal.com].
As you say, the same -- and legally required -- solution is for the legislature to amend the law instead of courts defining a bee to be a fish.
Re: (Score:2)
I see your argument - but when the legislature is bogged down in politics these things fall to the courts. And they didn't define the bee to be a fish - they decided that the laws written definition of 'fish' includes insects.
The law's lumping of molluscs and invertebrates as 'fish' makes as much sense as including insects. Well, as written, it clearly includes insects, because it explicitly includes larvae of invertebrates, like dragonfly larvae!
Re: (Score:2)
The lower court ruled what I think is correct: The legislature intended "invertebrate" here to mean aquatic or littoral invertebrates like quahogs or fiddler crabs, and not terrestrial ones like bees. It's not the job of courts to rewrite laws because "well, the legislature would have included this, but they didn't think about it" -- that does not give the public clear notice of what the law is, and it is effectively an ex post facto law.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that the court probably interpreted the term "fish" broadly because it aligned with the policy preferences of of judges--but it is also very defensible from a textual perspective. Rephrasing your interpretation of the courts' mandate: It's not the job of courts to rewrite laws because "well, the legislature would have *excluded* bees by adding the word 'aquatic,' but they didn't think about it." The law says that the term "Fish" includes invertebrates, bees are invertebrates and the legislature can
Re: (Score:2)
Yates v United States was a criminal case, which is why the rule of lenity makes such a strong appearance in what you quoted. This case isn't a criminal one, and you haven't engaged with the canons that would apply (such as noscitur a sociis).
A normal reader would not see "fish" and think "yeah, that includes bees" -- even given the statute's definition of the word "fish".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the job of US judges specifically is not "to make sure the law works". That's the job of the legislature. The job of US judges is to apply the law, not make it. We have separation of powers between the branches of our government.
Maybe things are different in a civil law country.
Re: (Score:2)
As usual, you are both flatly wrong and an absolute asshole about it. https://www.courts.ca.gov/7318... [ca.gov] is very clear that "making the laws" (or even making them work) is not the job of the courts. A little Internet searching will probably find for you similar pages from the White House and US federal court system that explain the same thing about the federal judiciary here.
Clickbait nonsense (Score:2, Interesting)
The act itself defines the term "fish":
‘[f]ish’ means a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate,
amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.”
In other words, they use the word "fish" rather than writing "fish, mollusk, crustacean, inverterbrate, amphibian etc" over and over again. You'd do the same.
It's fun making fun of California, but this is a complete non-story.
Re: (Score:3)
You'd think a bunch of supposed techies would recognize the use of a macro.
This kind of macro (Score:2)
Yeah, techies always enjoy finding code like:
#define ADD_1(x) (x == 1 ? 2 : x > 5 ? x * x - 3 : sqrt(x))
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyers put stuff like that in documents for the same reason programmers do. Job security.
Your example is pretty tame though. Your macro doesn't even include another macro.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, they use the word "fish" rather than writing "fish, mollusk, crustacean, inverterbrate, amphibian etc" over and over again. You'd do the same.
No, typically in this scenario most sensible people would pick a generic term that actually fits - such as in legal contracts where they start off with a statement along the lines of:
"In the document below it is understood that "We", "The Company", "The Guarantor" all refer to ACME Holdings LLC"
Rather than attempting a bizarre redefinition of a well-known word like "fish" in a manner seemingly intended to invite ridicule, they could have used a term like "included species" or "classes of life forms" or "Vul
Re: (Score:2)
They could, but then they would have to call it the 'Included Species Act'.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why they include "mollusk" and "crustacean" when they're covered by "invertebrate".
Re: (Score:2)
Because what they meant for the "Fish and Game" department to regulate were to be inclusive of "things which live underwater", even if they're not technically a fish, not "every insect no matter what". If they'd wanted to cover all insects, they would've just said "insect".
Re: (Score:2)
What I meant is they could've just said "invertebrates" and "fish". They didn't need to say mollusks and crustaceans, because they are already invertebrates. Invertebrates covers everything that's not a mammal/reptile/bird/amphibian/fish. Basically they're being the department of redundancy department.
So, to Judges the law means (Score:2)
So. logically (Score:3)
I will need a fish license for my pet Eric the half a bee.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you only need half a fish licence.
Bumblebee Tuna (Score:2)
Idiots (Score:2)
Bumble bees indeed should be protected. Courts should not make up laws. Calif Democrats have a supermajority in both houses of the legislature. They should fix the law, not punt it to the courts who make a mockery of the law.
Give them a break (Score:2)
The California legislature is busy trying to define what a woman is. And a "shoulder thing that goes up".
Hunting? (Score:2)
Does a California fishing license now allow me to hunt down and kill bees?
Re: (Score:2)
Does a California fishing license now allow me to hunt down and kill bees?
Yes, you can hunt to your limit of up to 4 bees per day, assuming you have purchased and mark your tag appropriately.
Capybaras (Score:2)
I heard a fun but probably apocryphal story. Back in the day, Venezuela was inhabited mostly by Catholics. The Pope said you couldn't eat meat on Fridays. However, South America has lots of capybaras (think 50 kilo guinea pigs), which live in marshes and wetlands. The Venezuelans decided capybaras were fish so they were OK to eat on Friday.
It's amazing what we can rationalize when it's in our immediate best interest to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Japan, rabbits use the same counting suffix as birds.
Wait, what? In Japanese, you use different suffixes depending on what you're counting? Wow, I never heard that before.
If I were creative, I'd start writing sitcom scripts centered around someone using the wrong suffix. The comedic potential seems unbound.
And another tiresome Right Wing talking point (Score:2)
Tomatoes (Score:2)
And the law considers a Tomato a vegetable, even though (by definition) it's a fruit. Legal Definitions and Scientific Definitions are two completely different things.
This whole story is a bit (ahem) fishy (Score:2)
But when lawyers are involved, logic does not necessarily apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if bees aren't protected, the agricultural industry will collapse due to the loss of the primary pollinator.
As it stands, bees need to be imported to pollinate crops in parts of the state due to large decreases in bee population.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if this means that you'll need a license from Fish & Game to buy bug spray. Or if they're going to ban it outright?
They already banned DDT bug spray, years ago. Turns out the government are allowed to regulate stuff. Who knew?
I also wonder what this means for the Calistupidia's agricultural industry
Yea so stupid to protect endangered species. They should let soulless corporations and contrarian weirdos do what they like.
Re: (Score:2)
"No dogs allowed - a dog, accompanied by a blind person, shall be defined to be a cat."
Re: Thanks CA (Score:2)
this is news. I'm going to bring a cat the next time I'm invited for golf.