Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/405091457/Ross-v-Acadian-Seaplants-Ltd-No-Was-17-142-Maine-Mar-28-2019
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 13:01:51+00:00

Document:
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.
by	the	Superior	Court	(Washington	County,	Stewart,	J.)	in	favor	of	Kenneth	W.
right.	Accordingly,	we	affirm	the	judgment.
¶	3,	151	A.3d	497.
attached	to	a	substrate	for	decades,	allowing	rockweed	to	generate	new	growth.
moderates	temperatures	and	provides	a	habitat	for	marine	organisms.
rockweed	in	Cobscook	Bay.	See	12	M.R.S.	§	6803-C	(2018);	see	also	id.
of	eligible	harvestable	rockweed	biomass	in	Cobscook	Bay.	See	id.	§	6803-C(9).
has	harvested	rockweed	from	Ross’s	intertidal	property	without	his	consent.
meaningfully	developed	in	the	trial	court	and	is	therefore	not	preserved	for	appellate	consideration.
this	action.	No	party	challenges	that	determination	on	appeal.
Procedure	do	not	apply.	See	M.R.	App.	P.	1	(restyled	Rules).
Acadian	counters—a	public	resource	held	in	trust	by	the	State.
allowed	by	the	English	public	trust	doctrine.	See	Bell	I,	510	A.2d	at	512-15.
889;	Bell	I,	510	A.2d	at	516.
law.	See	Me.	Const.	art.	X,	§§	3,5	5;6	see	also	Bell	I,	510	A.2d	at	513-14;	State	v.
force.	See	Me.	Const.	art.	X,	§	7;	1	Laws	of	Maine	1821	at	45-50	(text	of	article	X,	section	5).
v.	Bangor	Bank,	8	Me.	85,	93	(1831)	(stating	that	“[e]ver	since	[Storer	v.
been	considered	as	perfectly	at	rest”).
the	mean	high-water	mark,	belongs	exclusively	to	the	upland	property	owner.
“subject	to	certain	public	rights.”	Britton	II,	2011	ME	16,	¶	7,	12	A.3d	39.
differences	were	most	recently	brought	into	sharp	focus	in	McGarvey	v.
across	intertidal	lands	to	reach	the	ocean	for	purposes	of	scuba	diving.”	Id.	¶	1.
two	analytical	frameworks	articulated	in	McGarvey.
doctrine.	McGarvey,	2011	ME	97,	¶	56,	28	A.3d	620.
private	and	public	rights	to	the	intertidal	zone.	Id.	¶¶	49-50,	56-58.
is	authorized	and	protected	by	the	public	trust	doctrine?
transportation,	whether	traveling	over	frozen	intertidal	water,	see	French	v.
the	third	part	of	the	trilogy.
was	not	the	majority	view,	however,	because	the	Court	was	evenly	divided	on	that	question.	Id.	¶	1.
materials	from	place	to	place	.	.	.	.”).
not	encompass	harvesting	living	rockweed	from	the	intertidal	zone.
qualitatively	different	from	each	other.
or	deposit	scrapings	of	snow	upon	the	ice	over	[the	intertidal	land]”).
differing	reasons,	we	find	neither	to	be	dispositive.
case	law.	See,	e.g.,	Bell	v.	Town	of	Wells	(Bell	II),	557	A.2d	168,	187	(Me.	1989)	(Wathen,	J.,	dissenting).
The	second	case	is	Marshall	v.	Walker,	93	Me.	532,	45	A.	497	(1900),	which	Acadian	cites	favorably.
not	necessary	to	the	decision	of	the	case”	(quotation	marks	omitted)).
public’s	use	of	that	land.	See	id.	¶¶	41,	49,	57.
the	scope	of	activities	that	can	be	carried	out	as	a	matter	of	public	right.
seaweed	from	intertidal	lands	belonging	to	another.	Bell	II,	557	A.2d	at	185-89.
definition	of	the	recreational	activities”	that	are	within	the	scope	of	the	public’s	common	law	rights.
balance”	of	public	and	private	rights,	id.	at	188,	is	significant	here.
with	the	use	of	specialized	equipment	and	skiffs	that	have	a	multi-ton	capacity.
stationary	resources	such	as	attached	seaweed.”).
broader	of	the	perspectives	explained	in	our	case	law.
intertidal	zone	is	the	private	property	of	the	adjacent	upland	landowner.
the	holding	in	Bell	II.
SAUFLEY,	C.J.,	with	whom	MEAD	and	GORMAN,	JJ.,	join,	concurring	in	part.
and	reasonable	uses	of	the	public.12	See	id.	at	185-89.
a	power	boat	for	hire,	Andrews	v.	King,	124	Me.	361,	362-64,	129	A.	298	(1925);	clamming,	State	v.
French	v.	Camp,	18	Me.	433,	434-35	(1841).
McFadden	v.	Haynes	&	DeWitt	Ice	Co.,	86	Me.	319,	325,	29	A.	1068	(1894);	harvesting	seaweed,	Hill	v.
exit	for	swimming,	sunbathing,	frisbee-throwing,	and	picnicking.	Bell	II,	557	A.2d	at	175-76.
so	quickly	and	completely	extinguished.”	Id.	at	192	(Wathen,	J.,	dissenting).
concurring)—these	anemic	efforts	have	failed	to	do	what	must	be	done.
constrictive	trilogy	in	Maine	law,	no	majority	holding	to	that	effect	occurred,	id.
profession	as	well	as	the	people	should	have	a	right	to	rely.	.	.	.
expectations	will	be	torn	asunder	by	an	unforeseen	and	radical	departure	from	precedent.”).
enjoy	one	of	the	greatest	gifts	the	State	of	Maine	offers	the	world.
publicum	was	established.14	See	id.	at	180-81,	189.
North American Kelp, and Gulf of Maine, Inc.

References: §	6803
	§	6803
	v.

	§	7

v.	
	v.

	v.

	v.

	v.	
	v.	
	v.	
	v.

	v.	
	v.	
	v.