What's yellow and black, has a stinger and loves pollen? Apparently, the answer to this question is fish.&nbsp;A California court has ruled that bees can now legally be fish under specific circumstances. This groundbreaking ruling is not something to be laughed at; instead, it has the intent of protecting an irreplaceable species.&nbsp;The bee population in California and elsewhere has been on a rapid decline for some years now and this ruling is a step toward righting a decades-old wrong.&nbsp;Four years back public interest groups in California approached the court, asking them to include four species of bumblebee in the state's list of endangered animals.

The state Fish and Game commission maintained the list, and they agreed to consider the request. This 'stirred up a hornet's nest' of legal proceedings.&nbsp;

In the first hearing of this case, a court denied Bees' inclusion in the list.

Watch |&nbsp;Seeking safety for bees in the urban jungle: Biologists study ways to conserve bees

<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/seeking-safety-for-bees-in-the-urban-jungle-biologists-study-ways-to-conserve-bees-468610/embed" width="560"></iframe>

As per a report by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), California almond farmers were very much against this inclusion.

The state annually produces 3 billion pounds of almonds, which are heavily dependent on bees pollinating as many as 1.3 million acres of the trees. Farmers and trade groups were concerned that by placing bees on the protected list, they would have to restrict farmers from working with bumblebees and from using pesticides, which can harm bees but are necessary for the preservation of almond trees.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/number-of-flying-insects-felly-by-almost-60-in-20-years-in-uk-reveals-survey-warns-of-consequences-476962">Number of flying insects fell by almost 60% in 20 years in UK, reveals survey, warns of consequences</a>

A law from 1970, California's endangered species law affords special protection to endangered "bird, mammal, bird, fish, amphibia or reptile". The farmers contended that Bees don't figure in any of these categories. The first court agreed with this reasoning.&nbsp;

However, the Fish and Game Commission appealed and the second time's the charm.

The commission pointed out that the legal definition of 'fish' in California has been vague for some time.&nbsp;When California legislators defined fish, they didn't exactly stick to the scientific classification. They included all types of seafood including molluscs, clams, crustaceans like lobsters etc.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/study-finds-the-climate-crisis-could-lead-to-a-rise-of-smaller-bees-472803">Study finds climate change could lead to a rise of smaller bees</a>

Earlier, other animals were passed off as fish. In 1980, a snail got state protection, in the next four years, even a shrimp and a crayfish were awarded protection as 'fish'. So why not bees?&nbsp;

As per the appeals court any invertebrate animal, i.e., which doesn't have a backbone, irrespective of whether it lives on land, in the sea or air can qualify for protection as 'fish'.

Now opponents are considering challenging this ruling in the state Supreme court. Will the bee be a fish for long or not? We will 'sea'.

(With inputs from agencies)

What's yellow and black, has a stinger and loves pollen? Apparently, the answer to this question is fish. A California court has ruled that bees can now legally be fish under specific circumstances.

What's yellow and black, has a stinger and loves pollen? Apparently, the answer to this question is fish. A California court has ruled that bees can now legally be fish under specific circumstances. This groundbreaking ruling is not something to be laughed at; instead, it has the intent of protecting an irreplaceable species. The bee population in California and elsewhere has been on a rapid decline for some years now and this ruling is a step toward righting a decades-old wrong. Four years back public interest groups in California approached the court, asking them to include four species of bumblebee in the state's list of endangered animals. The state Fish and Game commission maintained the list, and they agreed to consider the request. This 'stirred up a hornet's nest' of legal proceedings. In the first hearing of this case, a court denied Bees' inclusion in the list. Watch | Seeking safety for bees in the urban jungle: Biologists study ways to conserve bees As per a report by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), California almond farmers were very much against this inclusion. The state annually produces 3 billion pounds of almonds, which are heavily dependent on bees pollinating as many as 1.3 million acres of the trees. Farmers and trade groups were concerned that by placing bees on the protected list, they would have to restrict farmers from working with bumblebees and from using pesticides, which can harm bees but are necessary for the preservation of almond trees. Also read | Number of flying insects fell by almost 60% in 20 years in UK, reveals survey, warns of consequences A law from 1970, California's endangered species law affords special protection to endangered "bird, mammal, bird, fish, amphibia or reptile". The farmers contended that Bees don't figure in any of these categories. The first court agreed with this reasoning. However, the Fish and Game Commission appealed and the second time's the charm. The commission pointed out that the legal definition of 'fish' in California has been vague for some time. When California legislators defined fish, they didn't exactly stick to the scientific classification. They included all types of seafood including molluscs, clams, crustaceans like lobsters etc. Also read | Study finds climate change could lead to a rise of smaller bees Earlier, other animals were passed off as fish. In 1980, a snail got state protection, in the next four years, even a shrimp and a crayfish were awarded protection as 'fish'. So why not bees? As per the appeals court any invertebrate animal, i.e., which doesn't have a backbone, irrespective of whether it lives on land, in the sea or air can qualify for protection as 'fish'. Now opponents are considering challenging this ruling in the state Supreme court. Will the bee be a fish for long or not? We will 'sea'. (With inputs from agencies)

Is it a bee? Is it a fish? It is endangered and needs to be protected, rules California court

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.

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.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/study-finds-the-climate-crisis-could-lead-to-a-rise-of-smaller-bees-472803">Study finds climate change could lead to a rise of smaller bees</a>

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.

“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.

Matthew Sanders of Stanford Law School’s Environmental Law Clinic hailed the decision as “a win for the bumblebees, all imperiled invertebrates in California, and the California Endangered Species Act.” Insects are “foundational to California’s agricultural production and healthy ecosystems,” he added.

Sanders’ clients – the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Center for Food Safety – petitioned the Fish and Game Commission to add the Crotch's bumblebee, Franklin’s bumblebee, Suckley cuckoo bumblebee, and Western bumblebee to the state’s endangered species list in 2018.

Watch |&nbsp;Seeking safety for bees in the urban jungle: Biologists study ways to conserve bees

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/seeking-safety-for-bees-in-the-urban-jungle-biologists-study-ways-to-conserve-bees-468610/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The commission quickly designated all four as “candidate species,” providing them with interim protections while it considered whether to list them as endangered.

However, the Almond Alliance of California, the California Farm Bureau Federation, and five other agricultural groups filed suit in Sacramento County Superior Court to establish that CESA does not protect insects – a point on which the legislature, agencies, and courts have vacillated since 1980, they said.

In 2020, the Superior Court ruled that the law’s reference to “invertebrates” had to be read in context, and included only aquatic animals.

Paul Weiland of Nossaman, lead counsel for the agriculture groups, said in an email Tuesday that they were “disappointed” and reviewing the decision before deciding “whether to seek further review.”

Attorneys for the state did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/one-species-may-benefit-from-climate-change-study-483922">One species may benefit from climate change: Study</a>

The case is Almond Alliance of California et al. v. Fish and Game Commission et al, Xerces Society For Invertebrate Conservation et al, intervenors; California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, No. C093542.

For Almond Alliance of California et al: Paul Weiland and Benjamin Rubin of Nossaman

For the Fish and Game Commission: California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Deputy Attorneys General Jeffrey Reusch and Adam Levitan

For Xerces Society For Invertebrate Conservation et al.: Matthew Sanders, Stephanie Safdi, and Deborah Sivas of Stanford Law School, Mills Legal Clinic’s Environmental Law Clinic.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

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.

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. 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. Also read | Study finds climate change could lead to a rise of smaller bees 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. “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. Matthew Sanders of Stanford Law School’s Environmental Law Clinic hailed the decision as “a win for the bumblebees, all imperiled invertebrates in California, and the California Endangered Species Act.” Insects are “foundational to California’s agricultural production and healthy ecosystems,” he added. Sanders’ clients – the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Center for Food Safety – petitioned the Fish and Game Commission to add the Crotch's bumblebee, Franklin’s bumblebee, Suckley cuckoo bumblebee, and Western bumblebee to the state’s endangered species list in 2018. Watch | Seeking safety for bees in the urban jungle: Biologists study ways to conserve bees The commission quickly designated all four as “candidate species,” providing them with interim protections while it considered whether to list them as endangered. However, the Almond Alliance of California, the California Farm Bureau Federation, and five other agricultural groups filed suit in Sacramento County Superior Court to establish that CESA does not protect insects – a point on which the legislature, agencies, and courts have vacillated since 1980, they said. In 2020, the Superior Court ruled that the law’s reference to “invertebrates” had to be read in context, and included only aquatic animals. Paul Weiland of Nossaman, lead counsel for the agriculture groups, said in an email Tuesday that they were “disappointed” and reviewing the decision before deciding “whether to seek further review.” Attorneys for the state did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Also read | One species may benefit from climate change: Study The case is Almond Alliance of California et al. v. Fish and Game Commission et al, Xerces Society For Invertebrate Conservation et al, intervenors; California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, No. C093542. For Almond Alliance of California et al: Paul Weiland and Benjamin Rubin of Nossaman For the Fish and Game Commission: California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Deputy Attorneys General Jeffrey Reusch and Adam Levitan For Xerces Society For Invertebrate Conservation et al.: Matthew Sanders, Stephanie Safdi, and Deborah Sivas of Stanford Law School, Mills Legal Clinic’s Environmental Law Clinic. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Bees are ‘fish’ under California Endangered Species Act – state court

Gray wolves, one of the first animals shielded by the Endangered Species Act after Americans all but exterminated them in the lower 48 states, will no longer receive federal protection, officials announced Thursday.

“After more than 45 years as a listed species, the gray wolf has exceeded all conservation goals for recovery,” Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said in a statement.

Environmentalists condemned the decision as dangerously premature and vowed to take the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service back to court, where they have successfully blocked previous attempts to strip wolves of federal protections. “Wolves just occupy a fraction of their former range,” said Jamie Rappaport Clark, president and chief executive of Defenders of Wildlife, an environmental group. “There’s so much work that needs to be done.”

The new rule will officially publish Tuesday and become effective 60 days after that. Then, states and tribes will assume control of the nation’s wolves, except for a subspecies called the Mexican wolf that remains under federal protection.

Thursday’s decision came despite significant concerns raised by scientists who performed the independent review that is required before the Fish and Wildlife Service can delist a species. Four of the five researchers charged with reviewing the proposal raised substantive concerns.

“I thought it was critically flawed,” said Carlos Carroll, an independent biologist with the Klamath Center for Conservation Research who said the Fish and Wildlife Service proposal, which is based on the consensus that wolves now face a low risk of extinction, ignored the importance of genetic variation in species.

That variation will be critical to allowing the animals to adapt to future threats like climate change, Carroll said, and is essential for their long-term survival.

Another reviewer, Adrian Treves, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said he was troubled that the Fish and Wildlife Service seemed to disregard his concerns that the proposal did not accurately estimate how many wolves would be killed by people.

“I predict that the consequence of the inaccurate risk assessment is that gray wolves are not secure in the Western Great Lakes,” he wrote last month in a follow-up memo to the federal Office of Management and Budget, “and the federal government will have to re-list them again, either by federal court mandate or after another wolf population crash.”

Gray wolves, one of the first animals shielded by the Endangered Species Act after Americans all but exterminated them in the lower 48 states, will no longer receive federal protection, officials announced Thursday.

Gray wolves, one of the first animals shielded by the Endangered Species Act after Americans all but exterminated them in the lower 48 states, will no longer receive federal protection, officials announced Thursday. “After more than 45 years as a listed species, the gray wolf has exceeded all conservation goals for recovery,” Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said in a statement. Environmentalists condemned the decision as dangerously premature and vowed to take the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service back to court, where they have successfully blocked previous attempts to strip wolves of federal protections. “Wolves just occupy a fraction of their former range,” said Jamie Rappaport Clark, president and chief executive of Defenders of Wildlife, an environmental group. “There’s so much work that needs to be done.” The new rule will officially publish Tuesday and become effective 60 days after that. Then, states and tribes will assume control of the nation’s wolves, except for a subspecies called the Mexican wolf that remains under federal protection. Thursday’s decision came despite significant concerns raised by scientists who performed the independent review that is required before the Fish and Wildlife Service can delist a species. Four of the five researchers charged with reviewing the proposal raised substantive concerns. “I thought it was critically flawed,” said Carlos Carroll, an independent biologist with the Klamath Center for Conservation Research who said the Fish and Wildlife Service proposal, which is based on the consensus that wolves now face a low risk of extinction, ignored the importance of genetic variation in species. That variation will be critical to allowing the animals to adapt to future threats like climate change, Carroll said, and is essential for their long-term survival. Another reviewer, Adrian Treves, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said he was troubled that the Fish and Wildlife Service seemed to disregard his concerns that the proposal did not accurately estimate how many wolves would be killed by people. “I predict that the consequence of the inaccurate risk assessment is that gray wolves are not secure in the Western Great Lakes,” he wrote last month in a follow-up memo to the federal Office of Management and Budget, “and the federal government will have to re-list them again, either by federal court mandate or after another wolf population crash.”

US to remove wolves from protected species list