> The Legislature is the body to address the gap, not the court.
They did. They said that “fish” includes, among other things, any inverterbrate.
The people challenging the executive action authorized by the legislature with this language wanted the court to declare that “any invertebrate” in the law does not include bees. But the courts are the wrong place for this: if they think the executive branch should not have regulatory authority over bees which the legislature has granted it over all invertebrates, they should take this to the legislature (or the people, acting via the power of initiative) to alter the grant of authority.
That is not in fact the question. The headline of this story asks you to believe it's the question, but the real story is much more boring than that, which you'll easily see by reading the actual decision. No, in fact, the word "invertebrates" was chosen specifically to include several endangered terrestrial invertebrates.
They did. They said that “fish” includes, among other things, any inverterbrate.
The people challenging the executive action authorized by the legislature with this language wanted the court to declare that “any invertebrate” in the law does not include bees. But the courts are the wrong place for this: if they think the executive branch should not have regulatory authority over bees which the legislature has granted it over all invertebrates, they should take this to the legislature (or the people, acting via the power of initiative) to alter the grant of authority.