SACRAMENTO — A California appeals court has ruled that, under certain circumstances, bees are now legally considered fish and can be protected as such under the state’s endangered species law.

The May 31 decision triggers protections for bumblebees and effectively prohibits actions that could kill, or “take,” some species without a permit or authorization.

Supporters of the ruling call it a win for bumblebees; critics say it might make farming activities, including grazing, growing crops and applying pesticides, more difficult.

In the ruling, Almond Alliance of California v. Fish and Game Commission, the California 3rd District Court of Appeals reversed an earlier judgment that had found that bumblebees could not be considered “fish” under the California Endangered Species Act, or CESA.

In 2018, the Defenders of Wildlife, Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and Center for Food Safety petitioned the California Fish and Game Commission to list four bumblebee species — the Crotch, Franklin’s, Suckley cuckoo and Western bumblebees — for CESA protection.

CESA, however, only protects “native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile or plant.” Insects are notably missing from the list.

The conservation groups argued that the definition of fish should be reinterpreted. Section 45 of CESA defines a fish as a “wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian or part, spawn or ovum of any of those animals.” The groups argued that the word “invertebrate” should include all invertebrates, not just aquatic ones.

The California Fish and Game Commission responded by voting to begin the listing process in 2019 but was sued by seven agricultural groups, including the Almond Alliance of California and the California Farm Bureau Federation.

The California Superior Court ruled in favor of the farm groups in 2020, but last month the California 3rd District Court of Appeals reversed the decision, allowing bumblebees to be classified as fish.

“Although the term fish is colloquially and commonly understood to refer to aquatic species, the term of art employed by the Legislature in the definition of fish in section 45 is not so limited,” 3rd District California Court of Appeals Associate Justice Ronald Robie wrote for the three-judge panel. “…Accordingly, a terrestrial invertebrate, like each of the four bumblebee species, may be listed as an endangered or threatened species under the Act.”

Robie called the decision “a liberal interpretation of the act.”

“The court’s decision allows California to protect some of its most endangered pollinators,” Sarina Jepsen, Xerces Society’s director of endangered species, said in a statement.

The Xerces Society said the decision could also pave the way for “critical protections “ for other “imperiled insects.”

California Farm Bureau’s senior counsel, Kari Fisher, said the organization is “troubled” by the appeal court’s decision and is “evaluating potential next steps.”

Andony Melathopoulos, Oregon State University Extension Service pollinator health specialist and assistant professor, said that although the decision was intended to protect bumble bees, it may actually have some unintended negative consequences.

One downside of the ruling, he said, is that it could make it more difficult for scientists to study bumblebee populations because they’ll need to apply for permits to “take” endangered pollinators.

“Before this ruling, entomologists in California could collect a lot of data on bumblebee distribution, and now it will be more closely scrutinized through permits,” he said.