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

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.

Add WION as a Preferred Source

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.

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.

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)