(1) It is not in fact a concept in law that the wording of a law must always trump the intent of its authors; in fact, that's a hotly debated topic (this is the distinction between "textualism" and "originalism").
(2) We don't even reach that problem here, because there is no ambiguity about what this statute says. To find that bees aren't fish, the court would have had to literally ignore the whole statutory definition.
(3) There's no "interpretation" (in the natural sense of the word) involved here. The statute defines the term we're debating, explicitly, exactly because they don't want courts to make up their own definition for the term "fish".
"(1) It is not in fact a concept in law that the wording of a law must always trump the intent of its authors"
I have precedent in my state that says otherwise - that you cannot ignore the text to pursue the spirit.
"We don't even reach that problem here, because there is no ambiguity about what this statute says"
Please explain what invertebrates was added under fish with other aquatic-relates species while the other addition of plants was given its own category.
(2) We don't even reach that problem here, because there is no ambiguity about what this statute says. To find that bees aren't fish, the court would have had to literally ignore the whole statutory definition.
(3) There's no "interpretation" (in the natural sense of the word) involved here. The statute defines the term we're debating, explicitly, exactly because they don't want courts to make up their own definition for the term "fish".