MAINE	SUPREME	JUDICIAL	COURT Reporter	of	Decisions Decision: 201 9 ME 45 Docket: Was

- 17

- 142 Argued : November	14,	2017 Decided: March	2 8 ,	2019 Revised: July	1 1 ,	2019 Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J.,	and	ALEXANDER , MEAD, GORMAN ,	JABAR , HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. Majority: ALEXANDER,	JABAR, HJELM, and	HUMPHREY,	JJ. Concurrence: SAUFLEY,	C.J., and MEAD and GORMAN , JJ.

KENNETH	W.	ROSS	et	al.

v. ACADIAN	SEAPLANTS,	LTD

.
HJELM ,	J. [¶1] This	case draws us	again into the confluence of public	and	private property	rights within the	intertidal	zone

— this	time,	to	address the ownership of rockweed ,	a	species	of	seaweed	that	grows	in Maine’s intertidal zone	and is often	found	on	the	rocky	ledges that accent the	State’s	coastline

. Specifically, we	are	asked	to	determine	whether rockweed	is	private	property that be longs to	the adjoining upland	landowner who	owns	the	intertidal	soil	in	fee	simple ,

or property	that	is held	in	trust	by the	State through	the jus	publicum for	the public to	harvest. [¶ 2 ] Acadian	Seaplants ,	Ltd., appeals	from a	summary	judgment	entered by	the	Superior	Court	(Washington	County, Stewart,	J. )	in	favor	of Kenneth	W.2 Ross,	 Carl	 E.	 Ross,	 and	 Roque	 Island	 Gardner	 Homestea d	 Corporation (collectively,	Ross),	who	 are owners	 of	upland	property where

— without	 the landowners’	permission

— Acadian has harvested	rockweed that	is	attached	to the	intertidal	land

. 1 In	its	judgment,	the court	declared that	rockweed	growing
i n	the	intertidal	zone	is the private	property of	the	upland	property	owners

. W e
agree that	 r ockweed in	 the	 intertidal	 zone belon gs	 to	 the	 upland	 property owner	and	therefore is not public property, is not	held	in	trust by	the	State for public us e ,	and	can not	be	harvested	by	members	of	 the	public	as	a	matter	of right

. Accordingly,	w e affirm	the	judgment.
I.		BACKGROUND [¶ 3 ] The	 following	 facts	 are	 taken	 from	 the	 parties’ stipulated joint statement	 of	 material	 facts ,	 submitted	 to	 the	 court	 on	 cross

- motions for summary	judgment. Se e BCN	Telecom,	Inc.	v.	State	Tax	Assessor ,	2016	ME	165, ¶	3,	151	A.3d	497

.

1 On	 this	 appeal,	 amici	 briefs	 have	 been	 filed	 by	 the	 Cobscook	 Bay	 Fishermen’s	 Association; Conservation	Law	Foundation;	Downeast	Coastal	Conservancy;	Downeast	Lobstermen’s	Association; Hale	 Miller;	 Jonesport	 and	 Beals	 Commercial	 Fishermen	 and	 Lobstermen; Maine	 Clammers Association,	 Independent	Maine	Marine	Worm	Harvesters	Association,	North	American	Kelp,	and Gulf	 of	 Maine,	 Inc.;	 Maine	 Coast	 Fishermen’s	 Association;	 Maine	 Coast	 Heritage	 Trust;	 Maine Department	 of	Marine	Resources;	Maine	Seaweed	Council;	Pa cific	Legal	Foundation	and	Property and	Environment	Research	Center;	and	Pleasant	River	Wildlife	Foundation. See M.R.	App.	P.	9(e) (Tower	2016).3 [¶ 4 ] Rockweed is	 the	 common	 name	 for several	 species	 of	 brown seaweed ,	 or	 macroalga.	 	 The	 most	 abundant	 of	 the	 species	 is	 known	 by	 the scientific	name As cophyllum nodosum and	is often found	on	rocks	and	ledges in the	intertidal	portions	of Maine ’s seacoast. Rockweed is	a	plant.		 It does	not
grow i n	intertidal	sand but obtains	its	nutrients	from	the	surrounding	seawater and	 air. Rockweed a ttaches	 to	hard, stable	 objects such	as ledge s and rocks using	a	disc

- like	structure	called	a	holdfast .		The	sole	function	of	the	holdfast is
to secure the	rockweed	in	place by	penetrating	the surface	of	substrate	by up to	 four	 millimeters

. A	 rockweed’s	 holdfast	 typicall y	 remains	 intact	 and attached to	a	substrate for	decades,	allowing	rockweed	to	generate	new	growth. If	 the	 rockweed	 becomes	 detached	 from a	 substrate, it cannot reattach	 its holdfas t to	a	different	substrate and will	float	freely	in	the	water	or	be	cast	onto the	land.		Rockweed,	which is typically	two to four feet	in	length	but	can	grow

to be more	 than six feet, is	important to	Maine’s	coastline ecology because	it moderat es	temperatures	and	provides a habitat for marine	organisms. [¶ 5 ] Acadian is	 a	 commercial	 entity	 that	 op erates	in	 Maine	 and	Nova
Scotia and harvests	rockweed	from	the	Maine	intertidal	zone for use	in various commercial	 products,	 such	 as	 fertilizer	 and	 animal	 feed.	 	 Acadian	 harvests rockweed during	mid

- tide , using three

- to
- four

- ton
- capacity	skiff s	and specially4 designed	cutting	rake s . During	the	harvesting	operation , Acadian	operates	the watercraft	in	intertidal	waters	without	walking	 or	 traveling	 on	 the	intertidal land itself

. The Departmen t	 of	 Marine	 Resources	 regulates	 the harvest	 of rockweed	 in	 Cobscook	 Bay. See 12	 M.R.S.	 § 6803

- C	 (201 8 ) ; see	 also	 id. § 6001 (7), ( 13)

. 2 Acadian	annually	harvests	the statutory	maximum 17 percent of eligible harvestable rockweed	biomass	in	Cobscook	Bay. See	i d. §	6803

- C(9). [¶ 6 ] Ross	owns	coastal	intertidal	property	on	Cobscook	Bay,	and	Acadian has	harvested	rockweed	 from	Ross’ s intertidal	property	without his consent. In	 December	 of 2015, Ross commenced	 this	 action	 by	 filing a	 two
- count complaint against	Acadian,	seeking , in C ount	1 , a	declaratory	judgment that he exclusively	 owns the	 rockweed	 growing	 on	 and	 affixed	 to his intertidal property,	and , in C ount	2 , injunctive	 relief that	would prohibit Acadian	 from harvesting	rockweed from	his	intertida l	land without his permission. Acadian’s answer	to	the	complaint included	a c ounterclaim for a	judgment declaring that

2 The	Department	of	Marine	Resources,	as	amicus	curiae,	argues	that 1	M.R.S.	§	2(2

- A)	(201 8 ) , which	governs State	regulation	of	harvesting	of	marine	resources,	establishes	the	public’s	right	to harvest	rockweed	from	the	intertidal	zone because the	statute	vests	ownership	of	that	seaweed	with the	State	and	therefore	not	with	the	upland	property	owners.		In	a	one

- sentence	footnote	in	its	reply brief,	Acadian	states	that	it	adopts	the	Department’s	arguments.		This	contention,	however,	was	not meaningfully	developed	in	the	trial	court	and	is	therefore	not	preserved	for	appellate	consideration. See Penkul	v.	Matarazz o ,	2009	ME	113,	¶ 11,	983	A.2d	375 (stating	that	an	issue	“not	presented	to	the trial	court	.	.	.	is	not	properly	before	this	Court	on	appeal”); see	also Jacobs	v.	Jacobs ,	507	A.2d	596, 597	n.1	(Me.	1986) (stating	that	we	will	consider	an	argument	raised	i n	an	amicus	brief	“only	to	the extent [] that	 it	 addresses	 issues	 raised	 before	 the	 trial	 court	 and	 pursued	 here	 by	 the	 parties themselves”).5 harvesting rockweed from the	 intertidal	 water is	 a	 form	 of	 “fishing”	 and “navigation”	within	 the	meaning	of the	Colonial	Ordinance and is therefore a public	 right. 3 The p arties	 filed	 cross

- motions	 for	 summary	 judgment predicated	on a joint	statement	of	material	facts

. See M.R.	Civ.	P.	56. In	March of 2017, after	holding	a	hearing, the	court	( Stewart, J. )	granted	Ross’ s motion in part by entering summary	judgment for	 Ross	 on	 his	 request	 for	 declaratory judgment	in	Count	1	of	his	complaint .		The	court	also	entered	judgment	for	Ross on	Acadian’s counter claim	and denied	Acadian’s	motion.		Ross then moved to dismiss C ount	 2	 of the complaint , and the	 court granted the	motion without objection	from	Acadian , resulting in	the	entry	of a final	judgment .		Acadian filed a	 timely	 notice	 of	 appeal

. See 14	M.R.S.	 § 185 1 (201 8 ) ;	M.R.	 App.	 P.	 2 (b) (3) (Tower 2016). 4
II.		DISCUSSION [¶ 7 ] Because the	 facts presented are	 not	 in	 dispute , we review the summary	judgment de	novo for	errors	of	law in	the	court’s	interpretation	of	the

3 Acadian also filed	a	motion	to	dismiss Ross’ s complaint for	failure	to	join	the	State	as	a	necessary party

. See M.R.	Civ.	P. 12(b)(7), 19.		The	court ( Stokes,	J. )	denied the	motion	after	concluding that	the State	was	not	exposed	to	any	current	or	future	litigation as	a	result	of	the	private	claims	asserted	in this	action

. No	party	challenges	that	determination on	appeal.

4 Because	this	appeal	was	filed	before	September	1,	2017,	the	restyled	Maine	Rules	of	Appellate Procedure	do	not	apply. See M.R.	App.	P.	1	(restyled	Rules).6 relevant	legal	concepts

. See Beane	v.	Me.	Ins.	Guar.	Ass’n ,	2007	ME	40,	¶	9,	916 A.2d	204 ; see also Remmes	v.	Mark Travel	Corp. ,	2015	ME	63,	¶ 19,	116	A.3d	466 ( “Cross	 motions	 for	 summary	 judgment	 neither	 alter	 the	 basic	 Rule	 56 standard,	 nor	 warrant	 the	 grant	 of	 summary	 judgment per	 se . ” (quotation marks	omitted ) ). [¶ 8 ] T he	limited	issue	before	us	is	wh ether	living rockweed,	growing	o n and	attached	to	intertidal land ,	is

— as	Ross	asserts

— the	private	property	of	the adjoining	 upland	 landowner	 who	 owns	 the	 intertidal	 zone in	 fee,	 or

— as Acadian	counters

— a	public	resource	held	in	trust	by	the	State

. A. Intertidal Property	Rights [¶ 9 ] Our	 consideration	 of	 this	 dispute takes us back	 to	 the	 analytical foundation s of the	law	governin g	rights	to	the	intertidal	zone: the	interrelated common	 law public	 trust	 doctrine	 and	 the	 rights	 embodied	 in	 the Massachusetts	Bay	Colon y’s	Colonial	Ordinance	of	1641

- 47 .		In	past	opinions ,

w e	 have	 described	 the	legal	 principles	 emanating	 from	 these	laws

. S ee ,	 e.g. , McGarvey	v.	Whittredge ,	2011	ME	97,	¶¶ 8

- 41 ,	28	A.3d	620 ; Bell	v. Town	of Wells (Bell II) ,	557	A.2d	168,	170

- 79 ,	180

- 89 (Me.	1989) ; Bell	v. Town	of Wells	(Bell	I) , 510	 A.2d	 509,	 511

- 17	 (Me.	 1986)

. G iven	 the extensive	 discussion	 in those7 opinions , we need not	 describe	 the	 historical	 origins	 and	 developments	 in detail here

. [¶1 0 ] I n	short , the	English	common	law tradition	vested both “ title ” to and	 “dominion”	 over the	 intertidal	 zone in	 the c rown . Shively	 v.	 Bowlby , 152 U.S. 1,	11	(1894)

. T itle

— the jus	privatum

— belonged	to	the	crown	“as	the sovereign”	 but	 was	 held	 subject	 to	 the	 public’s	 rights of “ navigation, ”

“ commerce, ” and “ fishing ”

— the jus	 publicum

— which	 the	crown	held	in	 trust for	 the	 public. Id

. After	 the	 American c o lonies	 gained	 independence, the ownership	 of	 intertidal	 land devolved	 to	 the	 particular state where the intertidal	area	was	located. Philli ps	Petroleum	Co.	v.	Miss issippi ,	484	U.S.	469, 476	(1988) ; Shively ,	152	U

. S

. at	14

- 15 ; State	v.	Leavitt ,	105	Me.	76,	7 8

- 7 9,	72
A. 875 (1909)

. Each	 state nonetheless	 remained	 free	 to	 modify	 its laws governing o wnership	of	the	intertidal	zone. Shively ,	152 U.S.	at	1 8

. I n	a	decision issued	in	1810, the	Massachusetts	Supreme	Judicial	Court ratified	the	vitality	of the	 Colonial	 Ordinance

. Storer	 v.	 Freeman ,	 6	 Mass.	 435,	 438	 (1810)

. The Colonial	Ordinance had conveyed	fee	title	to	the	intertid al zone — described as the	area	from	the	mean	high

- water	m ark	to	the	mean	low

- water	mark but	not more	than	100 rods

— to the upland	landowner subject	to	the	public’s	right	to use	the	wet	sand	for “ navigation, ” “ fishing, ” and “ fowling ”

— the	latter	being a n8 addition al use	 allowed	 by	 the	 Ordinance that	 augmented	 the	 uses already allowed	 by	 the	 English	 public	 trust	 doctrine

. See Bell I ,	 510	 A

. 2d	 at	 51 2

- 15

. Thus,	 the	upland	 owners	 obtained	 fee	 title	 to	 the	wet	sand	 to	allow	 them	 to “wharf	out,” see Conservation	Law Found.	v.	Dep’t	of	Envtl.	Prot. ,	2003	ME	62, ¶ 36,	 823	 A.2d	 551 ,	 and	 the public retained	 a n	 easement	 interest	 in that intertidal	zone , s ee Norton v.	Town	of	Long	Island ,	2005 ME	109,	¶	32 ,	883	A.2d
8 89 ; Bell	I ,	510	A.2d	at	516. [¶ 1 1] When	 Maine	 attained	 statehood	 in	 1820,	 by force	 of	 the	 Maine
Constitution the	arrangement	of	private	ownership	by	the	upland	owners	and the	right	of	the	public

— the jus	publicum

— was engrafted	into Maine	common law. See Me.	Const.	a rt.	X,	§§	3, 5 5; 6 see	also Bell	I ,	510	A.2d	at	513

- 14; State	v. Wilson ,	 42 Me.	 9,	 28	 (1856) (acknowledging	 that	 “[s]o	 far	 as	 the	 public	 had authority	to	use	the	shore	under	the	common	law	of	the	State,	as	declared	in the	provis o of	the	Colonial	[O]rdinance	of	1641	.	.	. [ s ] ubject	to	this	public	right, [the	property	owner’s]	title	to	the	shore	was	as	ample	as	to	the	upland”); Lapish

5 Article	X,	section	3	of	the	Maine	Constitution	provides	in	full,	“All	laws	now	in force	in	this	State, and	not	repugnant	to	this	Constitution,	shall	remain,	and	be	in	force,	until	altered	or	repealed	by	the Legislature,	or	shall	expire	by	their	own	limitation.”

6 Article	X,	section	5	 of	 the	Maine	Constitution	provides	and	adopts	 the Massachusetts	Act	of Separation.		That	provision	is	omitted	 from	printed	copies	of	 the	Constitution	but	 remains	in	 full force. See Me.	Const.	art.	X,	§	7; 1	Laws	of	Maine	1821	at	45

- 50 (text	of	article	X,	section	5).9 v.	 Bangor	 Bank ,	 8	 Me.	 85,	 93	 (1831) (stating	 that	 “[e]ver	 since	 [ Storer	 v.
Freeman ,	6	Mass.	435	(1810)],	as	well	as	long	before,	the	law	on	this point	has been	cons idered	as	perfectly	at	rest”). [¶1 2 ] The	 result	is	 that,	in	 Maine,	 t here are	 three separate shoreland

areas subject	 to distinct	 public	 and	 private	 rights. See Britton	 v.	 Donnell ( Britton II ),	 2011	 ME	 16,	 ¶	 6,	 12	 A.3d	 39. First,	 the land	 below	 the mean low

- water	mark	is owned by	the State

. See	id. ¶	7. Second, the dry	sand,	above the mean high

- water	mark,	belongs	exclusively	to	the	upland	property	owne r . See	id. ¶¶	6

- 7

. Finally,	there	is	the	area	that	is	the	subject	of	the	present	dispute: the	intertidal	zone

— the	land	between	the	mean high

- water mark	and	the	mean low

- water	mark up	 to	100	 rods , 12	M.R.S.	 §	572	 (201 8 ) (defining	 “intertidal land”	 as	 “all	 land	 of	 this	 State	 a ffected	 by	 the	 tides	 between the mean	 high watermark	and	either	100	rods	seaward	from	the	high	watermark	or	the	mean low	 watermark,	 whichever	 is	 closer	 to	 the	 mean	 high	 watermark”) ; see	 also
Britton II ,	2011	ME	16,	¶	6,	12	A.3d	39 ; Bell I ,	510	A.2d	at	515 .		The	intertidal

zone belongs	 to	 the	 owner	 of	 the	 adjacent	 upland	 property , or	 some	 other person	to	whom	that	part	of	the	land	has	been	transferred	by	the	upland	owner,

“ subject	to certain	public	rights

. ” Britton II ,	2011	ME	16,	¶	7,	12	A.3d	39.10 [¶1 3 ] T he	nature	and	extent	of	the	public’s	interest	in	the	intertidal	zone has	 been	 a	 subject	 of	 much	 debate,	 litigation,	 and	 judicial	 writing. Our jurisprudence has	 not	 clearly	 established ,	 for	 all	 purposes, the	 delineation between	 the	public	and	private	righ t s	in	and	 to	 the	intertidal	area .		Differing views	within	this Court	regarding	the	nature	and	scope	of	the	public’s	right	to use	the	intertidal	zone	became	evident	in our 198 9 decision in Bell II

. Those differences were most	 recently	 brought	 into	 sharp	 focus	 in McGarvey v. Whittredge ,	 2011	 ME	 97,	 28	 A.3d	 620

. There , the	 question	 presented	 was “whether,	as	a	matter	of	Maine	common	law,	the	public	has	the	right	to	walk across	intertidal	lands	to	reach	the	ocean	for	purpose s	of	scuba	diving.” Id. ¶	1

. All six j ustices	who	participated	in	that	case	agreed	that	that	use	was	within	the scope	of	the	public	trust	doctrine. Id. The Court was evenly	divided,	however, on	 the	 rationale	 supporting	 that	 conclusion. Compare id. ¶¶ 48

- 58, with ¶¶ 59

- 78. [¶1 4 ] Despite	these	divergent	views concerning	the scope	of	the	public’s intertidal	property	rights, only	one	conclusion obtains in	this	case : the	public may	 not	 har vest	 living	 rockweed	 growing	 i n	 and	 attached	 to	 the privately

- owned intertidal	zone. We	explain	this	outcome	with	reference	to	the two	analytical	frameworks	articulated	in McGarvey

.11
B. McGarvey	v.	Whittredge [¶1 5 ] In	 the	 first	 of	 the	 two doctrinal views discussed	 in McGarvey regarding the	nature	of	the	public	trust	rights ,	Chief	Justice	Saufley wrote that

“ [ r ] ather	than	stretching	the	definitions	of	the se	three	terms [fishing,	f o w l ing, and	navigation] beyond	their	reasonable	limits

.	.	. ,	we	return	to	the	roots	of	the common	 law.” Id. ¶	 5 3 .	 	 Pursuant	 to	 that	 approach, the	 terms	 “ ‘ f ishing, ’

‘ fowling, ’ and ‘ navigation ’ ” must be “broad [ ly ] underst [ ood ] ” and,	 over	 time, have been	“adapted	to	reflect	the	realities	of	use	in	each	era.” Id. ¶ ¶ 37, 39. This approach is	 consistent	 with	 the analysis articulated in Justice	 Wathen’s dissenting	opinion	in Bell II ,	557	A.2d	at	18 8 , which	“rejected a	rigid	application of	the	terms	of	the	Ordinance and	resorted	to contemporary	notions	of	usage and	public	 acceptance	in	 order	 to	 strike	a	 rational	and	 fair	balance	between private	ownership	and	public	rights.” [¶1 6 ] T h is broad	and adaptive	approach reflects	“judicial	unease	with	a rigid	interpretation”	of the	terms “fishi ng, ” “ fowling, ” and “ navigation”

— terms that were referenced in	the Colonial	Ordinance and that may,	pursuant	to	the broader	 interpretations	 urged	 originally	 by	 Chief	 Justice	 Wathen	 and	 more recently	 by	 Chief	 Justice	 Saufley,	 too	 narrowly	 describe	 the public	 trust doctrine

. McGarvey , 2011	ME	97, ¶	56,	28	A.3d	620

.12 [¶1 7 ] Therefore,	even	if	an	acti vity	carried	out	by	a	member	of	the	public does	not “fall	readily”	within the	notions	of “ fishing, ” “ fowling, ” or “ navigation, ” the	activity	may	nonetheless	be protected	by	the	public	trust doctrine so	long

as ,	pursuant	to	the common	law , the	activity constitutes “ a	reasonable	balance between	private	ownership	of	the	intertidal	lands	and	the	public’s	use	of	those lands.” Id. ¶ ¶	 49, 57. O n	 the particular facts presented	 in McGarvey , Chief Justice Saufley ’s opinion	concluded that even	though passing ove r	the	wet sand	in	order	to scuba	dive could	not	“ readily” be seen	as	a	type	of “navigation , ” the	 public was nonetheless entitled	 to	 engage	in	 that	 activity	 as	 a	 matter	 of general	common	law because	it represents “ a	reasonable balance ” between	the private	and	public	rights	to	the	intertidal zone . Id. ¶¶ 49

- 50, 56

- 58. [¶1 8 ] In	a	separate	opinion, Justice	Levy, writing	for	the	other half	of	the
Court ’s	panel	in	the	case , analyzed	the	question based	on	the limiting principle that	the	enumerated rights of “ fishing, ” “ fowling, ” and “ navigation ” were	“never understood	.	.	.	to	merely	establish	a	context	for	some	broader	right	or	rights.”
Id. ¶	 62

. Pursuant	 to	 this	 approach , while t hose terms delimit	 the	 public’s right s, they must be	interpreted	in	a	way that	is	“sympathetically	generous	and broad.” Id. ¶	71; see	also	Bell II ,	557	A.2d at	173	(summarizing	prior	case	law as	 allowing	 for	 “a	 sympathetically	 generous	 interpretation	 to	 what	 i s13 encompassed	 within	 the	 terms ‘fishing,’	 ‘fowling,’	 and	 ‘ navigation, ’	 or reasonably	 in cidental	 or	 related	 thereto”). Construing	 “nav igation”	 in	 that expansive	way

— but	not	looking	beyond	it

— Justice	Levy’s concurring	opinion concluded	that scuba	diving	fell	within	the	ambit	of	“navigati on” because	it is an	activity	that involves equipment and	methods that	are	similar	to	those	used
in tradit ional	forms	of navigation

. McGarvey , 2011	ME	97, ¶¶	75

- 76 ,	28	A.3d
620

. C. Application of	the	Two	Doctrinal	Views [¶1 9 ] W e now turn	 to	 the narrow issue	presented here : is	harvesting living	rockweed,	growing	in	and	attached	to	the	intertidal	zone,	an	activity that is	authorized	and	protected	by	the	public	trust doctrine ? [¶ 20 ] In addressing	 the	 harvesting	activity ,	we first consider	whether harves ting	living	 rockweed	 from	 the	intertidal	 zone	is	 a	 form	 of	 “fishing”	 or “navigation” as	those	activities	are	understood	in	Justice	Levy’s	concurrence	in McGarvey

. We	 conclude	 that,	 contrary	 to	 Acadian’s	 contention,	 harvesting living	rockweed	secured	to	th e	intertidal	bed	cannot	be	seen	as either “fishing” or	“navigation , ”	even	when	 those	 terms	are	interpreted	in	a	“sympathetically broad	 and	 generous”	 way. Id. ¶ 71. T hen we apply the	 more	 expansive “common	law”	approach	urged	by	the	Chief	Justices	and	the concurrence	to	this14 opinion	and address	whether	 the	common	law	permits	 the	public	 to	harvest rockweed	 as	 an	 activity	 that	 constitutes	 a	 “reasonable	 balance”	 between	 the public’s	rights	within	the	intertidal	zone	and	the	private property	interests	held by the	upland	property	owner. Id. ¶¶	49,	57.		Ultimately,	we	also	answer	this question	in	the	negative.
1

. Application	of	the	Trilogy [¶ 2 1] We	 first	 address	 the	 two	 relevant	 constituents	 of	 the	 trilogy: “navigation” and “fishing

. ” 7

a . Navigation [¶ 22 ] “ N a vigation” has	 been	 interpreted	 to	 involve	 some	 mode	 of transportation,	 whether	 traveling	 over	 frozen	 intertidal	 water, see French	 v. Camp ,	18	Me.	433,	4 34

- 35	(1841) ,	passing	on	intertidal	land	to get	to	and	from land	or	houses, see Deering	v.	Proprietors of	Long	Wharf ,	25	Me.	51,	65	(1845) ,

or mooring	vessels	and	loading	or	unloading	cargo, see id. ; Wilson ,	42	Me. at 24

. 8 In	each	of	these instances , the	primary	activity i s crossing the	intertidal	water or	land	itself. See,	e.g. , French ,	18 Me.	at	434	(stating	that	State

- owned	waters

7 Acadian	does	not	argue

— nor	could it

— that	harvesting	rockweed	is	a	type	of	“fowling,”	which	is the	third	part	of	the	trilogy.

8 As	is	discussed	above,	some	members	of	this	Court	also	concluded	that	scuba	diving	is	a	type	of navigation. McGarvey	v.	Whittredge ,	2011	ME	97,	¶¶	75

- 77,	28 A.3d	620 (Levy,	J.,	concurring). This was	not	the	majority	view,	however,	because	the	Court	was	evenly	divided	on	that	question. Id. ¶	1.15 are	 “of	 common	 right,	 a	 public	 highway,	 [available]	 for	 the	 use	 of	 all	 the citizens”). Although	there	is	a	navigational	component	to	harvesting	rockweed,
it is secondary	to what Acadian seeks	to	do. Rather, th e	harvesters	operate	the skiffs	in	intertidal	waters	for	the principal purpose	of	engaging	in	a	different , nonnavigation activity,	 namely, cutting	 and taking significant portions	 of rockweed plants

. The	harvesting	of	rockweed,	even	by	boat,	involves	the use	of the	intertidal	land	itself because living	rockweed	is attached	 to the	intertidal substrate	even	if	it	does	not	draw	nutrients	from	the	land. Therefore, Acadian uses	 the	intertidal	waters not	 for “ navigation ” in	its	own	right , but merely to gain acc ess to the	attached	rockweed

. S ee Gerrish	v.	Brown ,	51	Me.	256,	262 (1863) (“The	term navigation ,	as applied	to	waters	which	are	used	as	highways, imports	 something	 different;	 it	 denotes	 the	 transportation	 of	 ships	 or materials [] from	place	to	place	.	.	.	. ”). [¶ 2 3 ] Therefore, no	matter	how	broadly	“navigation”	is	viewed, it	does not	encompass harvesting	living	rockweed	f rom	the	intertidal	zone. b

. Fishing [¶ 2 4 ] H arvesting	rockw eed

— which	the	parties	stipulated is	a plant

— is
not a	 form	 of “fishing. ” See Small	 v.	Wallace ,	 124	 Me.	 365,	 367,	 129	 A.	 444 (1925 ) (stating	 that	 a	 landowner’s	 right	 to	 fish	 “arises	 not	 out	 of	 their16 ownership	of	the	soil	but	from [the	landowner’s] right	to	share	in	the	common right	 of	 fishery	 reserved	 t o	 the	 public”). The	 two	 types	 of	 ventures	 are qualitatively	different	from	each	other. [¶ 2 5 ] In	cases	involving	the	public’s	rights	within	the	intertidal	zone,	we have	viewed the	concept	of “ fishing ” broadly. We	have	not	imposed	limitations based	 on the fishery	 or	 the	 method	 used	 for	 fishing, see Moulton	 v.	 Libb e y , 37 Me.	472,	489

- 90 (1854) ,	and	w e	have recognized	the	public’s	right	to use the intertidal	 zone	 to	 dig	 for	 shellfish, see Leavitt ,	 105	 Me. at 79

- 81,	 72	 A. 875 ; Moulton ,	37	Me.	at	493

- 94 , and bloodworms, see State	v.	Lemar ,	147	Me.	405, 409,	87	A.2d	886 (1952)

. See	also State	v.	Norton ,	335	A.2d	607,	610	(Me.	1975) (recognizing	 the	 State’s	 authority	 to	 regulate	 the	 harvest	 of	 shellfish by	 the public). [¶ 2 6 ] Nonetheless,	 e ven a	 “sympathetically	 generous	 and	 broad interpretation	of	the	public’s	rights ”

— something	that “is	not

.	.	. without	limits, ” McGarvey ,	 2011	 ME	 97,	 ¶	 69,	 28 A.3d	 620	 (Levy,	 J.,	 concurring)

— can not transform	the	harvesting	of	a	marine	plant	into “ fishing. ” Cf

. Moore	v.	Griffin , 22 Me.	350,	356	(1843) (ho lding	that	the	taking	of	mussel

- bed	manure	does	not17 fall	 within	 the	 public	 trust	 rights); 9 Marshall	 v.	 Walker ,	 93	 Me.	 532,	 537, 45 A. 497 (1900) ( stating	that	the	public “ may	not	take shells or	mussel	manure or	deposit scrapings	of	snow	upon	the ice	over	[the	intertidal	land] ” )

. [¶ 2 7 ] R ockwe ed	 is	 biologically	 dissimilar	 from fish,	 lobster,	 clams, oysters, and bloodworms

— it	draws	nutrients	from	the	air	and	seawater	using a	photosynthetic	pr ocess	and,	 once	attached to	 the	intertidal	 substrate ,	does

not	 move. See Moulton ,	 37 Me. at 4 89

- 90 (stating	 that	 “the	 general	 term

‘ piscaria ,’	or	its	equivalent,	is	used	as	including	all	fisheries,	without	any	regard to	 their	 distinctive	 character,	 or	 to	 the	method	 of	 taking the	fish ”	 and	 giving examples	 of	 regulated	 “fisheries”	 to	 include	 oyster,	 lobster,	 salmon,	 herring, and	pilchard ( second emphasis	added ) )

. After arguing	in	its	brief	that “ seaweed is	 a	 marine	 organism,	 not	 a	 terrestrial	 plant,”	 at	 oral	 argument	 Acadian acknowledge d that	there	is	no	legal	distinction	between	plants growing	in	the soil	in	the	intertidal	zone	and	those	growing	on	the	rocks	in	that	same	area. The

9 Mussel

- bed	manure	comprises	shells	mixed	with	the	soil. See Opinion	of	Justices ,	313 N.E.2d	561, 567	(Mass.	1974 )	( stating	that	mussel mud	consists	of “ living	and	dead	shell	fish	.	.	.	and	the	soil	or clay	in	which	they	were	found” (alteration	in	original) ( quoting Porter	v.	Shehan ,	73	Mass.	435 ,	436 (1856)) ;	E.H.	Jenkins	&	John	Phillips	Street, Manure	from	the	Sea , 194	Conn.	Agric.	Experiment	Station 1,	11	(1917)	(referring	to	“marine	mud”	as	“mud	taken	from	flats	at	low	tide	or	cast	up	on	the	shore of	an	inlet	.	.	.	[and	i]n	some	places	vast	quantities	of	small	shells,	ground	fine	by	the	waves,	are	cast up	with	the mud”).18 fundamental	dissimilarities	between the	harvesting	of fish	and	of rockweed	as

a marine	plant	demonstrate	that	Acadian	is	not	in	the	business	of “ fishing. ” 10

10 The	parties	have	addressed	two	of	our	opinions	that	make	reference	to	intertidal	seaweed.		For differing	reasons,	we	find	neither	to	be	dispositive. The	earlier	of	the	two	opinions,	which	was	issued	more	than	150	years	ago,	states	that	“seawe ed belongs	to	the	owner	of	the	soil	upon	which	it	grows,	or	is	deposited,	unless	some	other	person	has acquired the	right	to	take	it.” Hill	v.	Lord ,	48	Me.	83,	99	(1861) (emphasis	omitted) .		The	analysis, however,	contains	several	statements	about	the	nat ure	of	seaweed	that	do	not	fully	square	with	the stipulated	record	here.		For	example, Hill states	that	seaweed	grows	partially	“on	the	beach.” Id. at 96.		This	was	significant	to	the	conclusion	that	seaweed	is	a	profit	“in	the	soil”	and	not	subject	to	the public’s	easement	rights	to	use	the	intertidal	waters. Id. at	99

- 100.		Here, in	the ir joint	statement	of material	facts , the	parties	stipulated that rockweed is	an	intertidal	seaweed

— meaning that	it “does not	grow	on	intertidal	sandy	beach	except	[attached	to]	hard

.	.	. objects.” We	do	not	entirely	reject Hill ,	however. A s	Acadian	acknowledged	a t oral	argument, there	is	no principled legal	 distinction	 between	 plants	 growing	 in	 the	 soil	 in	 the	 inte rtidal	 zone and those growing on	 the	rocks	in	 that	same	area, which	supports	the	application	of	 the	doctrine	of	profit	a prendre	that	underlies	the	analysis	in Hill

. Further, Hill has	been	invoked	as	authority	in	more	recent case	law. See,	e.g., Bell	v. Town	of Wells	(Bell	II) , 557	A.2d 168,	187	(Me.	1989) (Wathen,	J.,	dissenting). To	the	extent	that Hill has	persuasive	effect,	 the	case	 favors	Ross,	but	we	do	not	place	dispositive weight	on	it. See Appeal	of	Robinson ,	88	Me.	17,	23,	33	A.	652	(1895) (“T he	common	law	would	ill deserve	 its	 familiar	 panegyric	 as	 the	 ‘perfection	 of	 human	 reason,’	 if	 it	 did	 not	 expand	with	 the progress	 of	 society	 and	 develop	 with	 new	 ideas	 of	 right	 and	 justice.”); Woodman	 v.	 Pitman , 79 Me. 456,	458,	10	A.	321	(1887) (“The	inexhaustible	and	ever

- changing	complications	in	human affairs	are	constantly	presenting	new	questions	and	new	conditions	which	the	law	must	provide	for as	they	arise	.	.	.	.”); see	also Mitchell	W.	Feeney,	Comment, Regulating	Seaweed	Harvesting	in Maine: The	Public	and	Private	Interests	in	an	Emerging	Marine	Resource	Industry , 7	Ocean	&	Coastal	L.J.	329, 343	 (2002) (discussing	 the	 erroneous	 scientific	 principles	 upon	 which	 the	 Court	 in Hill	 v.	 Lord appears	to	rely, and	noting	that	it “is	now	known	t hat seaweeds	do	not	receive	their	nutrients from the	soil,	but	from	the	surrounding	water	column	[and t]heir	only	reliance	on	the	soil	is	for	anchorage purposes”). The	second	case	is Marshall	v.	Walker ,	93	Me.	532 ,	45	A.	497 (1900) ,	which	Acadian	cites	f avorably. That	opinion	states	that	the	public	is	entitled	to	“take	sea	manure”	(which	includes	seaweed	and	is given	that	description	because	of	its	use	as	a	fertilizer, see	generally Jenkins	&	Street, supra ; see	also 1	 F.H.	 Storer, Agriculture	 in S ome	 of I ts	 Relations	 with	 Chemistry 462	 (4th ed. 1892) ) from	 the intertidal	zone. Marshall ,	93	Me. at	536

- 37 ,	45	A.	497 .		No	authority,	however,	is	offered	 for	 that assertion.		Further, Marshall was	a	quiet	title	action	and	did	not	determine	the	nature	of	the	public’s rights	 to	 the	 land	 or	 implicate	 questions	 of	 public	 ownership.	 	 Therefore,	 the	 opinion’s	 general discussion	of	the	nature	of	the	public’s	rights	is	dictum	on	which	we	do	not	place	w eight. See Legault v.	Levesque ,	150	Me.	192,	195,	107	A.2d	493	(1954) (stating	that obiter	dictum is	“ an assertion	of	law not	necessary	to	the	decision	of	the	case” (quotation	marks	omitted) ).19
2

. Application	 of	 the Common	 Law	 and	 “Reasonable	 Balance” Approach [¶ 2 8 ] Having concluded	that	harvesting	rockwee d	is	neither “navigation”

nor “ fishing ” pursuant	to the “sympathetically	generous and	broad ” approach described	 in	 Justice	 Levy’s McGarvey concurrence , see 2011	 ME	 97,	 ¶	 71,
28 A.3d	 620 , we further conclude	 that ,	 likewise, the	 activity	 does	 not	 “fall readily”	within	either category	of	“navigation”	or	“fishing , ” as	discussed	in	Chief Justice	Saufley’s	concurring	opinion	in McGarvey , see id. ¶	49. Thus,	w e turn	to the	additional	inquiry explained by both Chief	Justice	Saufley	in McGarvey and by the Bell	II dissent ,	which calls	for	an	assessment	of	whether	the	removal	of rockweed	by	members	of	 the	public	 from privately	owned land is	within	 th e common	law	principle	that looks	to achieve a “ reasonable	balance ” between	the private	landowner’s	interests	and	the	rights	held by	the	State	in	trust	for	the public’s use of that	land. See	i d. ¶ ¶ 41, 4 9 , 57

. [¶ 29 ] In	answering	this	question,	we	draw further guidance	from Chief Justice	 Wathen’s dissenting	 opinion	 in Bell II , 557	 A.2d	 at	 188

- 89 , which espouses	 the	 same	b roader	 view	 of	 the public	 trust	 rights described in	Chief Justi ce	Saufley’s	discussion	of	the	extent	of	those	rights in McGarvey ,	2011	ME 97, ¶ ¶	47, 49, 28 A.3d	6 20

. We	conclude	that	e ven pursuant	to that	school	of20 thought, the	harvesting	of	seaweed attached	to	the	intertidal	land falls	outside the	scope	of	activities	that	can	be	carried	out	as	a	matter	of	public	right. [¶ 3 0 ] T he	 criterion	 used	 in	 the Bell II dissenting	 opinion	 calls	 for consideration	 of	 “contemporary	 notions	 of	 usage	 and	 public	 acceptance	 in order	 to	 strike	 a	 rational	 and	 fair	 balance	 between	 private	 ownership	 and public	rights.” 557	A.2d at	188. In	finding	the	appropriate	balance,	“we	must avoid	placing	any	additional	burden	upon	the	shoreowner”

— a	burden	that	can result when	 something	 is	 taken	 from	 the	 intertidal	 lands. Id. at	 188

- 89.	 	 In formulating	 that	 standard,	 the	 dissent	 drew	 on	 a	 collectio n	 of	 our	 cases, including Hill	v.	Lord ,	48	Me. 83, 9 6 (1861) ,	which	prohibited	 the	removal	of seaweed	from	intertid al	lands	belonging	to	another. Bell	II ,	557	A.2d	at	185

- 89.
It is	sign ificant here that	even	a	broad	view	of	the	public	trust rights explained in	the Bell	II dissent do es not	encompass	the	harvesting	of	seaweed. 11

11 We	are	careful	not	to	push	the	limits	of the dissenting	ana lysis	in Bell	 II too	 far.		While the dissent concluded	 that,	 in	 his	 view,	 the	 public’s	 rights	 included	 “such	 recreational	 activities	 as bathing,	 sunbathing	 and	 walking,”	 he	 specifically	 did	 “not	 attempt	 to	 provide	 a	 comprehensive definition	of	the	recreati onal	activities”	that	are	within	the	scope	of	the	public’s	common law	rights. Bell	II ,	557	A.2d at	189.		Setting	aside	the	question	of	whether,	for	purposes	of	determining	the	scope of	 intertidal	 rights,	 commercial	 activities	 can	 be	 equated	 with	 recreatio nal	 activities,	 the	 core principle	 urged	 by	 the	 dissent	was	drawn	 from	 the	lessons	 of	 our	 case	law,	including Hill

. Id. at 181

- 89.		Thus,	although

— given	the	explicit	limitation	noted	above

— the	dissent	in Bell	II cannot	be read	 to	 state	 directly	 that	 remov ing	 seaweed	is	 outside	 the	 scope	 of	 the	public’s	 right	 to	 use	 the intertidal	waters,	 the	 dissent’s	 use	 of Hill to	 derive	 the	 baseline	 principle	 of	 a	 “rational	 and	 fair balance”	of	public	and	private	rights, id. at	188,	is	significant	here.21 [¶ 3 1 ] This is a	 reasonable	 and	 proper	 demarcation	 between	 the competing	 interests	 at	 stake	 here.	 	 The	 “additional	 burden”	 imposed	 on	 the owner	of	the	intertidal	zone, id. a t 188 , is	not	reasonable	when	the	nature	of	the interference	consists	of	cutting	and	removing	marine	p lants	from	the	intertidal

zone, proximate	to	the dry	sand on	which	the	public	has no independent	rights, with	the	use of specialized	equipment	and skiffs that	have	a	multi

- ton	capacity

. Furthermore , Acadian’s	 activity	 is	 qualitatively	 similar	 to	 other	 uses	 of	 the intertidal	zone	that	we	have	held are outside	of	the	public	trust doctrine

. See , e.g. , McFadden	v.	Haynes	&	DeWitt	Ice	Co. ,	86	Me.	319,	325,	29 A.	1068	(1894) (holding	 that	 although	 a	 person may pass	 over intertidal	 land	 to	 fish,	 that
person may not	enter	that	land	for	the	purpose	of	cutting	ice); King	v.	Young , 76 Me.	 76,	 80	 (1884) (holding	 that	 the	 Colonial	 Ordinance	 does	 not	 permit taking	musse l

- bed	manure	from	another’s	intertidal	land); Moore ,	22 Me. at 356 (same); see	also Mitchell	W. Feeney,	Comment, Regulating	Seaweed	Harvesting in	 Maine:	 The	 Public	 and	 Private	 Interests	 in	 an	 Emerging	 Marine	 Resource Industry , 7	Ocean	&	Coastal	L.J.	329, 340

- 41 (2002) (“[N]owhere	in	the	body	of Maine	 case	 law	 has	 fishing	 been	 held	 to	 include	 the	 collection	 of	 vegetable
matter. Migratory	resources	(like	fish,	and	presumably	shellfish	and	worms)22 have	 traditionally	 been	 less	 protected	 by	 private	 property rights	 than stationary	resources	such	as	attached	seaweed.”). [¶ 3 2 ] Therefore, the harvesting	of	rockweed	is	not	encompassed	within the	 rights	 held	 by	 the	 public	 even	 when	 those	 rights	 are	 viewed	 from	 the broader	of	the	perspectives	explained	in	our	case law.
III.		CONCLUSION [¶ 3 3 ] For	 these	 reasons,	 we	 conclude	 that, pursuant	 to both of	 the differing legal constructs our	opinions	have articulated to define the	scope	of the	public’s intertidal	property rights,	rockweed	attached	to	and	growing	in	the intertidal zone is	 the	 private	 property	 of	 the	 adjacent	 upland	 la ndowner. Harvesting	 rockweed from	 the	 intertidal	 land	 is therefore not	 within	 the collection	of	rights	held	in	trust	by	the	State,	and	members of	the	public	are	not entitled	to	engage	in	that	activity	as	a	matter	of	right. And	because	neither	view of	 the	 public’s	 right	 to	 use	 the	 intertidal	 zone	 accommodate s the	 activity	 at issue	here, we	determine

— contrary	to	the position of	the	concurring	jus tices

— that this	case	does	not	present	us	with	the	occasion	to	consider	the	vitality	of the	holding	in Bell	II

. The	entry	is: Judgment	affirmed.23

SAUFLEY,	C.J., with	whom	MEAD	and	GORMAN,	JJ.,	join, concurring in	part. [¶ 3 4 ] In	 1989,	 the	 Law	 Court,	 in	 a	 sharply	 divided	 opinion,	 made	 a regrettable error , limiting public	 access	 to	 the	 intertidal	 zones	 on	 Maine’s beaches	in Bell	v.	Town	of	Wells ( Bell	II ),	557	A.2d	168	(Me.	1989) .		Since	that
time ,	a	member	of	the	public	has	been allowed	to	stroll	along	the	wet	sands	of Maine’s	intertidal	zone	holding	a	gun	or	a	fishing	rod,	but	not	holding	the	hand of	a	child. [¶ 3 5 ] Recognizing ,	as	the	majority	concludes, that the	pronouncement	of that	 four

- justice	majority	in Bell	 II is	not	u ltimately	dispositive	in	 the	matter before	us,	we	would,	nonetheless,	clarify	the	applicable	law and set	aside	the holding	in Bell	II .		Accordingly,	we	concur	in	the	result	of	the	Court’s	opinion, but we do not	 join	 the	 analysis	 because we would	 take	 this	 opportunity	 to explicitly overrule Bell	II

. [¶3 6 ] Bell	 II, which	 addressed	 the	 intertidal	 zone	 at	 Moody	 Beach	 in Wells ,	 was	 decided thirty years	 ago. Id. at	 170. Prior	 to	 that	 decision,	 as	 a matter	of	common	law,	 the	public	had long	e njoyed reasonable	access	 to	 the intertidal	zone. Id. at	180,	184

- 85	(Wathen,	J.,	dissenting). The	extent of and24 limitations	on	that	access	had	evolved	over	centuries	to	adapt	to	the	differing and	reasonable	uses	of	the	public. 12 See	id. at	185

- 89. [¶ 3 7 ] As	 predicted	 in	 the Bell	 II dissent, id. at	 192,	 and	 in	 another separate	opinion	issued	in	its	wake, Eaton	v.	Town	of	Wells ,	2000 ME	176,	¶	52,
760 A.2d	 232 (Saufley,	 J.,	 concurring), Bell	 II has	 generated	 significant	 and expensive	 litigation	 resulting	 from	 the	 Court’s	 limitation	 of	 the public’s allowable	activities	to	those that	can	be	forced	into	the	definitions	of “fishing, fowling,	and	navigation , ” Bell	II ,	557	A.2d	at	169. The	constrictive	trilogy	of	that holding	has bedeviled	the	State	of	Maine	since	that	opinion	was	issued,	and we

12 Permissible	 a ctivities	 that	 had	 been	 held	 to	 fall	 within	 the	 public	 trust	 rights	 before	 the imposition	of	the con strictive	trilogy in Bell	v.	Town	of	Wells	(Bell	II) ,	557	A.2d	168,	173	(Me.	1989), included	the	following:	digging	for	worms, State	v.	Lemar ,	147 Me.	405, 408

- 09,	87	A.2d	886	(1952) ; landing	on,	receiving	and	discharging	passengers	from,	and	walking	across	intertidal	land	to	access a	power	boat	for	hire, Andrews	v.	King ,	124	Me.	361,	362

- 64,	129	A.	298	(1925) ;	clamming, State	v. Leavitt ,	105	Me.	76,	77

- 80,	7 2	A.	875	 (1909) ;	transporting	merchandise,	 rafting,	driving	logs,	and floating	or	propelling	boats	across	intertidal	land,	whether	for	commercial	or	recreational	purposes, Smart	v.	Aroostook	Lumber	Co., 103	Me.	37,	47

- 48,	68	A.	527	(1907) ;	sailing	over,	mo oring	a	vessel on,	walking	across,	riding	or	skating	on	ice	over,	digging	shellfish	in,	and	 taking	sea	manure	 from intertidal	 land, Marshall	 v.	 Walker ,	 93	 Me.	 532,	 536

- 37,	 45	 A.	 497	 (1900) ;	 mooring	 a	 vessel, discharging	 passengers,	 and	 taking	 on	 cargo, Sta te	 v.	 Wilson ,	 42	Me.	 9,	 24

- 25	 (1856) ;	 fishing	 for shellfish, Moulton	v.	Libbey ,	37	Me.	472,	489

- 90	(1854) ;	passing	to	other	property	after	landing	a	boat, Deering	v.	Proprietors	 of	 Long	Wharf ,	25	Me.	51,	64

- 65	 (1845) ;	and	 traveling	over	 frozen	waters, Fren ch	v.	Camp ,	18	Me.	433,	434

- 35	(1841). Activities	of	the	public	prohibited	in	the	intertidal	zone	before Bell	II included	taking	shells	or mussel	manure,	or	depositing	snow	or	ice, Marshall ,	93	Me.	at	536

- 37;	cutting	ice	or	depositing	snow, McFadden	v.	Hay nes	&	DeWitt	Ice	Co. ,	86 Me.	319,	325,	29	A.	1068	(1894) ;	harvesting	seaweed, Hill	v. Lord ,	48	Me.	83,	100	 (1861) ;	and	 removing	mussel

- bed	manure,	ballast,	 or	sand, Moore	v.	Griffin , 22 Me.	350,	355

- 56	(1843) .		With	the	issuance	of	the Bell	II decisio n ,	th e	prohibited	activities	have thus	far	been	expanded	to	include	general	recreation,	such	as	walking	along	the	wet	sand,	entry	and exit	for	swimming,	sunbathing,	frisbee

- throwing,	and	picnicking. Bell	II ,	557 A.2d	at	175

- 76.25 fear	 that	 the	 Court’s	 holding	 will	 become	 enshrined	 in	 increasingly uncorrectable law. [¶3 8 ] As	Justice	Wathen	wrote	eloquently	in	his	dissent	to Bell	II :	“This
Court ’ s	 opinion	does	nothin g	 to	dispel	 the	 obvious	conclusion	 that	 from	 this moment	 on,	 at	 Moody	 Beach	 and	 every	 other	 private	 shore	 in	 Maine,	 the public ’ s	 right	 even	 to	 stroll	 upon	 the	 intertidal	 lands	 hangs	 by the	 slender thread	 of	 the	 shore owners ’ consent. I	will	not	hazard	a	g uess	whether	 that consent	will	be	forthcoming.		In	my	judgment,	the	public	rights	should	not	be so	quickly	and	completely	extinguished.” Id. at	192	(Wathen,	J.,	dissenting). [¶ 39 ] Although	judicial	efforts	to	loosen	the	strings	of Bell	II have	been und ertaken

— for	 example ,	 in	 the strained	 i nterpretation	 of	 “navigation”	 in McGarvey	 v.	 Whittredge ,	 2011	 ME	 97,	 ¶¶	 72

- 77,	 28 A.3d	 620 (Levy,	 J., concurring )

— these anemic	 efforts	 have	 failed	 to	 do	 what	 must	 be	 done. Although	three of	the	six	sitting Justices sought	to	avoid	further	enshrining	the

c onstrictive t rilogy	in	Maine	law ,	no	majority	holding	to	that	effect	occurred, i d. ¶ ¶	1, 53 (Saufley,	C.J. ,	concurring ) ,	thus	leaving	in	place	the	jurisprudence	that led	to the	tortuous	shoehorning of	various	activit ies into	the	constrictive	trilogy by	declaring	the	simple	walk	of	a	scuba	diver	across	the	intertidal	zone	to	the26 ocean	 as	 fitting	 into	 the	 definition	 of	 “navigation.” Id. ¶¶ 72

- 7 7 (Levy,	 J. , concurring ). [¶4 0 ] As	 time	marches	on,	concepts	of	stare	decis is may	begin	 to take root	in	this	critical	aspect	of	Maine	law,	and	Maine	landowners,	understandably,
may begin	 to	 rely	 on	 the	 restrictions	 placed	 on	 the	 public’s	 access	 to	 the intertidal	zone. 13 The Bell	II decision was built	in	great	part	on	a	literal	reading of	 the	Colonial	Ordinance , 557	A.2d	at 175	 (“The	Massachusetts	court	 noted that	 the	 Colonial	 Ordinance	 mentioned	 no	 public	 rights	 except	 for	 fishing, fowling,	and	navigation.”) , which	was	actually	no	longer	extant at	 the	 time	of

13 The	 doctrine	 of	 stare	 decisis preserves	 the	 reliance	 interests	 of	 the	 public	 by	 counseling adherence	to	the	previously	established	rule	of	law	created	by	precedent: Litigants	have	a	right	to	transact	business	with	reference	to	the	law	enunciated by	the	court.		Most	valuable	property rights	may	be	predicated	upon	the	law,	as	thus declared.	 	 These	 rights	 should	 not	 be	 impaired	 nor	 sacrificed	 by	 a	 reversal	 or modification	of	the	law	except	upon	cogent	and	necessary	reasons.		Stability	of	the law	 should	 be	 the	 one	 great	 outstanding	 featur e	 of	jurisprudence	 upon	which	 the profession	as	well	as	the	people	should	have	a	right	to	rely.	.	.	. Jordan	v.	McKenzie ,	113	Me.	57,	59,	92	A.	995	(1915) ; see Adams	v.	Buffalo	Forge	Co. ,	443	A.2d	932, 935	 (Me.	 1982) (“Courts	properly	seek	 to	 create	 a	 framework	 of	 continuity	amidst	a	 universe	 of continuous	change	in	order	that	those	citizens	and	litigants	who	rely	upon	the	legal	doctrines	and principles	 they	announce	may	conduct	 their	day

- to
- day	affairs	without	 fear	 t hat	 their	 reasonable expectations	will	be	torn	asunder	by	an	unforeseen	and	radical	departure	from	precedent.”). If	we	do	not	stem	the	tide	of Bell	 II ’s	influence	now,	therefore,	we	 fear	that	stare	decisis	will impose	rigid	results	“restrained	by	the	bonds of	the	past”	that	perpetuate	a	“cultural	lag	of	unfairness and	injustice”

— exactly	the	consequence	we	must	take	care	to	avoid. Moulton	v.	Moulton ,	309	A.2d 224,	 228	 (Me.	 1973) ; see	 Adams ,	 443	 A.2d	 at	 935	 (discussing	 that	 the	 court’s	 discretion	 in determin ing	whether	 to	 apply	 stare	 decisis	 in	 a	 given	 matter	 “must	 be	 exercised	 with	 a	 view	 to whether	 adherence	 to	 past	 error	 or	 departure	 from	 precedent	 constitutes	 the	 greater	 evil	 to	 be suffered”).27 Maine’s	statehood , see McGarvey ,	2011	ME	97,	¶¶	29

- 30,	28	A.3d	620	(Saufley, C.J.,	concurring). That decision

— Bell	II

— has been	questioned, see	E aton ,	2000 ME	 176,	 ¶¶ 50

- 55,	 760	 A.2d	 232	 (Saufley,	 J.,	 concurring) ; pretzeled , see McGarvey , 20 11 ME	 97,	 ¶¶	 72

- 77,	 28	 A.3d 620	 ( Levy,	 J.,	 concurring ) ; and avoided, see	id. ¶¶ 48

- 49	(Saufley,	C.J.,	concurring)
. Accordingly,	because	of	the passage	 of	 time, which	 will	 eventually diminish the ability	 of	 the	 Court	 to correct	 the	 wrong	 created	 by	 the Bell	 II decision, we would	 take	 this opportunity	to	correct	the	judicial	error	that	restricted	the	rights	of	the	public to	engage	in	reasonable	ocean

- related	activities	that	do	not	interfere	with	the upland	 owners’	 peaceful	 enjoyment	 of	 their	 own	 property or	 their right	 to wharf	out. [¶4 1 ] The 1989	 decision	 in Bell	 II erroneously limited the	 public’s reasonable	and	nonabusive	use of	the	intertidal	zone.		That	use	should	include the	right	to	walk	unfettered	upon	the	wet	sand	of	Maine	beaches to	peacefully

e njoy	one	of	the	greatest	gifts	the	State	of	Maine	offers	the	world. [¶4 2 ] Simply	put, we would	overrule Bell	II once	and	for	all. We would adopt	 the	 original	 Wathen	 analysis , Bell	 II ,	 557	 A.2d	 at	 180

- 92	 (Wathen,	 J., dissenting), and	allow	the	common	la w	of	public	access	and	use	of	the	intertidal28 zone	to	continue	to	develop	as	it	has	over	the	centuries.		The	public	deserves
our	correction. [¶4 3 ]		We would	then,	as	the	Court	has	done	today,	conclude	that ,	even according	 to	 the public’s common	law	access rights to	 the	intertidal	zone ,	 the public does not	have	the	right	to tak e attached	plant	life	from	that	property	in contradiction	to	the	fee	owner’s	wishes

— not	b ecause such	activity falls	outside of	 the	 constrictive	 trilogy,	 but	 because	 the	 taking	 of	 attac hed	 flora	 from	 fee owners	 was	 not	 within	 the	 reasonable	 access	 contemplated	 when	 the jus publicum was	established. 14 See	id. at	180

- 81,	189.

Benjamin M. Leoni, Esq. (orally), Curtis Thaxter LLC, Portland, for appellant Acadian Seaplants Limited Gord on R. Smith, Esq. (orally), Verrill Dana, LLP, Portland, for appellees Kenneth W. Ross, Carl E. Ross, and Roque Island Gardner Homestead Corporation Catherine R. Connors, Esq. (orally), Pierce Atwood LLP, Portland, for amicus curiae Maine Department of Ma rine Resources

14 Of	note,	the	people	of	Rhode	Island	have	amended	their s tat e	constitution	to	allow	the	public to	 take	 seaweed,	 even	when	 attached	 to	 the	land : “The	 people	 shall	 continue	 to	 enjoy	 and	 freely exercise	all	of	the	rights	of	fishery,	and	the	privileges	of	the	shore,	to	which	they	have	been	heretofore entitled	under	the charter	and	usages	of	this	state,	including	but	not	limited	to	fishing	from	the	shore, the	gathering	of	seaweed,	leaving	the	shore	to	swim	in	the	sea	and	passage	along	the	shore;	and	they shall	be	secure	in	their	rights	to	the	use	and	enjoyment	of	the	nat ural	resources	of	the	state	with	due regard	 for	the	preservation	of	their	values	.	.	.	.” R.I	Const.	art.	 I,	§	17	(LEXIS	through	ch.	2	of	the Jan. 2019	Session)

.29 Brian W. Thomas, Esq., Stocking & Thomas, LLC, Lamoine, for amicus curiae Downeast Coastal Conservancy Karin Marchetti

- Ponte, Esq., Maine Coast Heritage Trust, Mount Desert, for amicus curiae Maine Coast Heritage Trust John A. Churchill, Esq., Calais, for amicus curiae Cobscook Bay Fishermen’s Association Mary A. Denison, Esq., Lake and Denison, Winthrop, for amici curiae Maine Clammers Association, Independent Maine Marine Worm Harvesters Association, North American Kelp, and Gulf of Mai ne, Inc. Robert Miller, Dean W. Alley, Wendell Alley, Shawn L. Alley, Nathan Fagonde, and Ordman Alley Jr., amici curiae, jointly as “Jonesport and Beals Commercial Fishermen and Lobstermen” Severin M. Beliveau, Esq., Jonathan G. Mermin, Esq., and Matth ew S. Warner, Esq., Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Portland, for amicus curiae Maine Seaweed Council Leah B. Rachin, Esq., and Benjamin T. McCall, Esq., Bergen & Parkinson, LLC, Kennebunk, for amicus curiae Hale Miller Gerard P. Conley., Jr. Esq ., Cloutier, Conley & Duffett, P.A., Portland, for amicus curiae Downeast Lobstermen’s Association Kurt E. Olafsen, Esq., Olafsen & Butterfield, LLC, Portland, for amicus curiae Maine Coast Fishermen’s Association Mariah D. Mitchell, Esq., Eaton Peabody, Brunswick, for amicus curiae Pleasant River Wildlife Foundation Sean Mahoney, Esq., Conservation Law Foundation, Portland, for amicus curiae Conservation Law Foundation Ryan P. Dumais, Esq., Eaton Peabody, Brunswick, for amici curiae Pacific Legal Found ation and Property and Environment Research Center30 Washington County Superior Court docket number CV

- 2015

- 22 F OR C LERK R EFERENCE O NLY