• Cap
    link
    fedilink
    821 month ago

    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.

        • @Mnemnosyne
          link
          English
          111 month ago

          None of this makes sense, but you can at least follow the nonsensical chain of events if you know the full story.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        25
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        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.

        • Ignotum
          link
          fedilink
          English
          141 month ago
          1. Make conservation law protecting crabs
          2. Carcinisation
          3. Profit Conservation
    • skulblaka
      link
      English
      91 month ago

      But… Fish are vertebrates… They have a spine… What?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 month ago

        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.

        • Hotdog Salesman
          link
          fedilink
          English
          61 month ago

          Vegetables don’t exist, they’re just edible plants. It’s a superset that contains fruits, leaves, stems, flowers geophytes and many more reeeeeeeee