The 1970 act explicitly protected “fish,” which were initially defined as invertebrates. And because the act has protected snails and other invertebrates that live on land since, Tuesday’s ruling said it interpreted the legislation to also include bees.
I’d link to the article but it’s a nightmare.
Ohhh I see so they initially defined fish as invertebrates. Got it.
Yeah, it all makes sense when you know the full story
None of this makes sense, but you can at least follow the nonsensical chain of events if you know the full story.
We need scientists advising every lawmaker.
To clarify, though, we do not need scientists to tell lawmakers that bees are not fish. We need scientists to tell lawmakers not to put conservation laws into effect that only cover fish, and then not publish any new ones so we have to keep expanding that one by reclassifying more and more things as fish.
- Make conservation law protecting crabs
- Carcinisation
ProfitConservation
But… Fish are vertebrates… They have a spine… What?
It’s ok, it’s just like flammable and inflammable.
US also passed something stated that pizza is a vegetable, for the purposes of providing kids nutrients in school. They based that result in the fact that pizza has tomatoes in the sauce. Nevermind tomatoes are a fruit.
The people that make the rules that govern our lives have a disconnect with us.
Vegetables don’t exist, they’re just edible plants. It’s a superset that contains fruits, leaves, stems, flowers geophytes and many more reeeeeeeee
Ssshhhh… Just let it go. Objective reality no longer exists.
Fish have spines, you asshole regulators
It’s so christians can eat bees during fasting. duh.
mmmm tastes like pain
Chuck Testa was once Governor of California.
Was it really Chuck Testa? Or… just Chuck Testa?
Does that mean I need a fishing license to catch bees?
Yes, although the first one would be nice to have.
This is some old school rogue like birds are bats logic, bees swim through the air.
