Bees Are Fish, California Court Rules

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff
a reply to: nugget1

Got my bee tackle and rod and I am heading out to the fish hive to try my luck.

I got stung by a trout and I caught a honey fish!

Retards.

Dang , I been doing this all wrong .
Tennis racket for sale , cheap .
Will trade for a good fishing rod .

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I agree that bees need to be protected but calling bees fish is just stupidity, plain and simple, just put them in the endangered species list and be done with.

The Cali government can halt ALL new water reservoir construction due to a newt that isn't even local , but have to redefine a bee to protect it ?

We live in stupid times ....

a reply to: CriticalStinker

They need to UPDATE the law, regulation to include bees. Lazy a s s e s.

a reply to: marg6043

I put my beehive in a tank of water. They died. I guess these fish can't swim.

a reply to: jarsue97

Really I guess the woke liberal trash judges got their degrees in online courses, anybody can be anything under the democrats in power this days.

Yes I agree the Bees must bee saved all around the planet but like Kurt Cobain said
"Underneath the bridge
The tarp has sprung a leak
And the animals I've trapped
Have all become my pets
And I'm living off of grass
And the drippings from the ceiling
It's okay to eat fish
'Cause they don't have any feelings"

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: nugget1

I mean, it's a stretch. But what is really head scratching is why they had to resort to this to protect bees.

That was my thought.

Why can't they just say bees are protected?

Monsanto

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: nugget1

I mean, it's a stretch. But what is really head scratching is why they had to resort to this to protect bees.

That was my thought.

Why can't they just say bees are protected?

Monsanto

Bingo. And it doesn't just stop at bees. There are subsidies in the industry, some of which require you to use Monsanto products. It hurts competition, discourages crop and food diversity, and makes us vulnerable because uncommon events may target one kind of plant more than another. All your eggs in one basket can kill the year.

It's been a bad year for wheat, not just because of geopolitics, but natural factors as well. US, Canada, and China all had a bad year on wheat.

Well I guess if moths can be "light beings" from another world, I guess bees can be fish 👍

a reply to: ChiefD

I'm happy to help the little pollenators do their thing and live on so that we may live on.

I just don't want to do stupid things anymore.

Isn't this the basic idea of checks and balances?

So, there is a tribunal from the judicial branch interpreting something in order to push through something that they may feel the legislative branch is dragging their feet on, *cough - they are bought by big agra - cough*.

I mean many people have said why not just add them to the endangered list. They can't, nor can the executive branch. Well, the judicial can, this way, and that is why they did it this way.

Now the decision can be reviewed higher up in the chain and be upheld or struck down.

originally posted by: shaemac
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: nugget1


I also agree, make a law to protect bees, they are essential and need protecting. BUT

Don't turn them into trans-fish

An upper court ruling overturned the sensible judge who said bees are not fish. But these days all one has to do is say "they identify as ..." or through convoluted reasoning we can prove that A is really B, and we must all agree, or else.

Democrats are truly anti-scientific idiots.

Do we now need a fishing license to harvest honey?

As one person put it in some comments:
When the descriptive model of reality becomes the reality then delusion isn't far behind. Thanks to the liberal progressives constantly redefining reality. As in rioting/looting/burning cities in the summer is a "summer of love".

The new reality, courtesy of the "new and improved liberal progressive science". Can chicken now be trans-fish?:

a reply to: Sookiechacha

But what is really head scratching is why they had to resort to this to protect bees.

This time, Sookie, I agree with you.

Luckily we still have an abundance of beeble-bums around here, but that's probably because I do everything I can to avoid using poisons.

TheRedneck

I Always grow very nice Tomatoes but this
Year i have beautiful Plants 2 Feet Tall.
Not a single Tomato and Loaded with Blooms.
Haven't seen a Fish in my Garden.
Maybe they all Flew to California.

a reply to: nugget1

Frickin California. I had to use a shovel to properly face-palm myself after reading that garbage.

originally posted by: bluesman462002
I Always grow very nice Tomatoes but this
Year i have beautiful Plants 2 Feet Tall.
Not a single Tomato and Loaded with Blooms.
Haven't seen a Fish in my Garden.
Maybe they all Flew to California.

a reply to: nugget1

You can 'bee' the pollinator; take a Q-tip and pollinate them yourself.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: nugget1

I mean, it's a stretch. But what is really head scratching is why they had to resort to this to protect bees.

I guess insects are so reviled that there are no regulations to provide them any kind of protections. It's a shame that pesticide companies and corporate executives can't be environmentally responsible enough to be trusted not to kill bees and drive them to the brink of extinction.

Sure looks like the system is convoluted and there’s far too many laws and over regulation making things not work as it should. So judges have to attempt to find loop holes we all know are compete lies like bees are now considered fish? To achieve a desired outcome. Seems like one instance smaller government would be more effective.

a reply to: daskakik

Isn't this the basic idea of checks and balances?

No, it is not. Checks and balances are not a way to skirt the law... checks and balances are a way to ensure that one group doesn't get out of control.

Don't get me wrong... I am happy that the bees are getting protected. But this is not legal either. This is legislating from the bench. Congress makes the laws; judges do not make laws.

Legislative makes the laws; judges vet and verify the laws; executives enforce the laws. A check and balance is like the veto power of the President... the President is executive, but he has an opportunity to strike down a law before it becomes law... unless enough of Congress overrides the veto. Congress has a check and balance against the President: the power of impeachment. Congress also has a check and balance over the Supreme Court: amend the Constitution so a law struck down is now constitutional.

Judges making laws (or interpreting law clearly outside what the legislature intended) is NOT a check and balance. It is an illegal act. Just because in this one specific case, good will probably come of this, it does not make it right. Right would be the California legislature passing a law to protect the bees.

TheRedneck