Court Opinion

ID: 9857536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 15:07:37.742443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:47:50.842938
License: Public Domain

*651SCOLNIK, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my view, recreational snowmobiling as permitted by Rule 19 is antithetical to the trust’s paramount purpose of preserving the wilderness experience.
The Court concludes that since the use of snowmobiles enhances access to the Park, such use does not offend, but is compatible with, the terms of the trust. This analysis misframes the issue. The issue in this case, as both the Authority and the Superi- or Court perceived it, is not whether snowmobiling as a means of wintertime access to Baxter Park is permissible under the trust, but whether snowmobiling for recreational purposes may be so permitted.
The history of Rule 19 plainly demonstrates that the rule was not intended to promote access but is designed expressly to allow recreational snowmobiling. In December, 1968, the Authority officially sanctioned the use of snowmobiles for recreational purposes when it promulgated the first version of Rule 19. Prior to 1968, the use of snowmobiles in Baxter Park was unregulated and recreational snowmobiling was therefore not prohibited. In 1976, after the Attorney General rendered his opinion that the terms of the trust prohibited the recreational use of snowmobiles, the Authority amended the rule to prohibit such use. In November, 1979, after the Maine Snowmobile Association proposed reconsideration of the ban, the Authority instituted a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking guidance concerning the legality of permitting snowmobiles in the Park for recreational purposes. The Authority agreed that if the Superior Court ruled that the trust did not prohibit recreational snowmobiling, it would promulgate a rule establishing the extent to which the use of snowmobiles for recreational purposes would be allowed in Baxter Park.
The sole issue presented to the Superior Court was whether, as a matter of law, “the Authority [was] prohibited.. .from permitting the use of snowmobiles within the park for recreational purposes.” In 1981, the Superior Court answered the question by concluding that the terms of the trust did not per se bar recreational snowmobiling.1
Following that decision, the Authority initiated a rulemaking proceeding for a “proposed rule for the recreational use of snowmobiles in the Park.” (emphasis added). The Authority understood its task to be the fashioning of a rule that would permit the recreational use of snowmobiles but would not, “in actual practice,” “conflict” with the wilderness concept embodied in the trust. It accomplished that goal by *652promulgating Rule 19. The rule essentially divides the Park into two unequal sections, one for the recreational use of snowmobiles, the other for those who rely on non-mechanical modes of recreation such as cross-country skiing and snowshoeing. Recreational snowmobile use is basically restricted to the Perimeter Road and certain spurs in the western, northern and eastern portions of the Park and to two larger lakes in the western section of the Park, while other winter non-mechanized recreational uses are confined to the eastern and interior two thirds of the Park. Thus, as explained by the Authority, the rule effects a "total separation of uses between snowmobiles, and cross-country skiers [or snowshoers]....” (emphasis added).
The plaintiffs sought judicial review of Rule 19 contending, inter alia, that the rule violates the terms of the trust because of the extent to which it permits the recreational use of snowmobiles. The Superior Court, in this proceeding, held that the recreational use of snowmobiles permitted by the rule was “compatible” with the trust because, by completely separating the conflicting recreational uses, the rule did not “unduly infrin[ge]” on the wilderness experience.2 Hence, both the Authority and the Superior Court determined that since the rule separates the two conflicting uses, the recreational use of snowmobiles did not unduly detract from the wilderness experience of others who are “willing to walk” because they would not be in that section of the Park where their wilderness experience would be diminished.
Accordingly, the history of Rule 19 makes clear that the issue before us has little to do with the use of snowmobiles as a means of access to the Park. Despite the fact that snowmobile use, like many other forms of mechanized recreational devices, may simultaneously facilitate access, it cannot be ignored that the purpose of the rule is to permit recreational snowmobiling. Therefore, the issue that must be addressed, as I see it, and as both the Authority and the Superior Court perceived it, is whether the recreational use of snowmobiles permitted under Rule 19 comports with the terms of the trust.3 In my opinion, it obviously does not.
*653The trust evolved over time to reflect Governor Baxter’s intent as embodied in his deeds and transmittal letters. The two conditions in the deeds provide that the Park lands “forever shall be kept for and as a State forest and public park and for public recreational purposes” and that they “forever shall be kept in their natural and wild state and as a sanctuary for wild beasts and birds....” In 1971, the State of Maine reiterated these concerns in the statement of purpose of Baxter Park. P.L. 1971, ch. 477, § 1. That statement, relying primarily on Governor Baxter’s own words, interpreted the terms “public park,” “recreation,” “natural wild state” and “sanctuary for wild beasts and birds.” It states, in part:
Lest those that follow, uncertain of Governor Baxter’s wishes, seek to define his desires in ways inharmonious with their original intent, this section is enacted.
It shall be the object of the Baxter State Park Authority to preserve the grandeur and beauty of Maine’s highest peak, Mount Katahdin, as well as the 45 other mountains, the numerous lakes, ponds and streams; to subordinate its own wishes to the intent of Governor Baxter; to recognize his wish that, in this era of change, one thing of natural beauty remain constant.
This intent must be interpreted so as not to separate this park from the people to whom it was given; but rather seek to have it enjoyed and “used to the fullest extent but in the right unspoiled manner.”
As a public forest it shall remain in its natural wild state and when “the Forests of our State have been cut off and disappeared, when civilization has encroached upon the land we now refer to as ‘Wild Land,’ this park will give the people of succeeding generations a living example of what the State of Maine was ‘in the good old days’ before the song of the woodsman’s axe and the whine of the power saw was heard in the land.”
As a public park and a place of recreation, it is apparent that it is intended for “those persons who enjoy the wilderness” and that the repeated use of the word “recreation” refers to the use of this park compatible with its natural state as a wilderness area and an expanse “for those who love nature and who are willing to walk and make an effort to get close to nature ... with pleasant foottrails built and attractive campsites laid out in the valleys, by the brooks, and on the shores of the water.”
As a tract kept in its “natural wild state,” it is intended that “everything in connection with the park must be left simple and natural and must remain as nearly as possible as it was when only the Indians and the animals roamed at will through these areas...” Access to the park shall be provided only “as may be necessary to accommodate those persons who wish to enjoy the great unspoiled area that now is the property of our State...”
“While I am living I fear no encroachments on the park, but as time passes and new men appear upon the scene, there may be a tendency to overlook these restrictions and thus break the spirit of these gifts.”
12 M.R.S.A. § 900 (emphasis added).
Governor Baxter also executed a formal declaration designed to clarify his intent as embodied in the terms of the trust, which was accepted by the Legislature in the 1955 Interpretation Act, P. & S.L. 1955, ch. 2. The Governor stated in that declaration:
This area [the Park] is to be maintained primarily as a Wilderness and recreational purposes are to be regarded as of secondary importance and shall not *654encroach upon the main objective of this area which is to be ‘Forever Wild’.
Id. (emphasis added).
The above provisions illustrate that there are two alternative standards that must be met in order for the rule to be declared valid. First, as a recreational activity, the permitted recreational snowmobiling must be “compatible with [the Park’s] natural state as a wilderness area and an expanse ‘for those who love nature and who are willing to walk and make an effort to get close to nature.’ ” Second, the recreational snowmobiling permitted by the rule must not “encroach upon the main objective” of maintaining the Park in its natural state. For all practical purposes, these standards mean basically the same thing. They require that any recreational activity permitted in the Park must be harmonious with, and not encroach on, the trust’s primary objective of preserving the wilderness experience.4
The Authority’s own conclusion — that the conflicting recreational uses of snowmobiles and non-mechanized modes of recreation cannot be accommodated except by total physical separation — shows that the extent of recreational snowmobiling permitted by the rule violates the standard set forth in the trust. If the permitted snowmobile use cannot co-exist with the use of the Park by those who are “willing to walk” to enjoy the wilderness in “the right unspoiled manner,” it certainly cannot be harmonious with or avoid encroaching on the wilderness experience. This fact was plainly recognized in this case by the Superior Court justice who, in reviewing the validity of Rule 19, stated:
It cannot be seriously argued that snowmobile riding itself is part of the “wilderness experience” as Governor Baxter contemplated it. Governor Baxter’s description of the experience as a primitive, one-to-one encounter between man and the elements on nature’s terms is antithetical to the sort of man-machine experience one has while snowmobiling.
Both the Authority and this Court assume that recreational snowmobiling can nevertheless be made compatible with the wilderness experience. This is achieved by “totally separating” the use of snowmobiles from those users of the Park who engage in recreational activities that do not spoil the wilderness experience. Such an assumption is flagrantly at odds with the trust. No provision in the trust allows for carving the Park into two zones in order to segregate recreational activities. To the contrary, the trust terms are quite clear that all recreational uses that occur anywhere in the Park must be harmonious with the wilderness experience. If the Governor’s goal of maintaining that experi*655ence for present and future generations is to have any meaning, the focus cannot be on whether human beings are actually present or not, but it must be on whether there is any diminution in the wilderness character of the Park or the solitude available to be experienced therein. In expressing his antipathy to any activity that might encroach on the wilderness condition, the Governor explained:
Katahdin should and must remain the wild, storm-swept, untouched by man region it now is: that is its great charm.. .a place where nature rules and where the creatures of the forest hold undisputed dominion. As modern civilization with its trailers and hot dog stands, its radio and jazz, encroaches on the Maine wilderness, the time yet may come when only the Katahdin region remains undefiled by man. If Maine or the National Government wishes to provide resorts for winter and summer sports, there are ample opportunities available elsewhere in Maine... .5
The preservation of the wilderness experience envisioned by Governor Baxter does not depend on the actual presence of people. It is to be preserved, instead, by preventing any encroachment that threatens the wilderness state without which no wilderness experience is possible. It is inconceivable that the sound and smell from the operation of snowmobiles on Matagamon and Webster Lakes would not encroach on Governor Baxter’s goal of maintaining the Park as a place to enjoy the wilderness as ‘““in the good old days” before...the whine of the power saw was heard in the land’ ” merely because others seeking the kind of wilderness experience contemplated by Governor Baxter are not physically in a particular area. Since it is evident that the recreational snowmobiling permitted by the rule cannot be reconciled with the wilderness state, the rule should be declared invalid. The trust requires nothing less.
Thus, although the issue presented in this case differs from the issue raised in the 1981 Superior Court decision, the above analysis of the validity of Rule 19 leads to the inevitable conclusion that the 1981 decision is incorrect. Ordinarily, rules of issue preclusion would require that we not disturb that Superior Court decision. However, an exception to the principle of collateral estoppel has been recognized in cases where private litigation has a “potential adverse impact” on the public interest. Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 28(5)(a) (1982). In such cases, protection of the public interest authorizes the correction of an erroneous judgment. This recognized exception is particularly applicable here because, unlike the 1981 declaratory judgment action that was decided in a more narrow context, the matter before us involves an examination of a specific regulation and provides a factual record, including testimonial evidence, that deals directly with the proposed rule. It cannot be disputed that the public would be adversely affected if an incorrect interpretation of the trust is permitted to stand. Over a period of thirty-one years, the Governor acquired over 200,000 acres of land for the purpose of preserving the wilderness experience. He conveyed this land in trust for the benefit of the people of Maine. Hence, a decision of this Court that would perpetuate the 1981 Superior Court decision, would not only adversely affect the parties of record, but also the populace at large for whom the trust was created. The facts in this case demonstrate that the 1981 decision is untenable. In these circumstances, this Court, under the Restatement exception, need not consider itself bound by principles of collateral estoppel when the consequence of such a restraint is the frustration of Governor Baxter’s clearly expressed purpose of creating the Park as a refuge against the encroachments of mechanized society to the prejudice of the trust beneficiaries, the people of the State of Maine.
Accordingly, I would vacate the judgment of the Superior Court and remand with instructions to declare Rule 19 to be *656invalid because the extent of recreational use of snowmobiles permitted by the rule violates the mandates of the trust.

. Because the machines were not invented at the time the trust instruments were drafted, the court found its terms ambiguous with respect to recreational snowmobiling and therefore considered extrinsic evidence of Governor Baxter’s subsequent expressions to determine his intent at the time he created the trust. One item of evidence considered was a letter from the Governor to Helen Taylor, Park Supervisor, dated May 11, 1965, in which he discussed snowmobile use in the Park. He wrote:
In regard to the Motor Skis I have thought this over and have this suggestion to make. These skis should be prohibited in the Park except for the one for you as Supervisor to use in cases of emergencies. I feel strongly about this for they will frighten away the wild animals and we certainly would not see a caribou again. This same reason prompted us to forbid the use of motor boats in our lakes. I can see the damage they would cause.
I would be much pleased if the AUTHORITY would add this to the list of what is forbidden in the regulations. Will you please bring this to the attention of the AUTHORITY members for this is the time to kill it.
The Superior Court justice stated that the letter was "not dispositive of [the] issue” and "reflect[ed] the ambiguity which exists within the trust.” The justice further concluded that "[h]ad Governor Baxter believed that the intent of the trust agreement clearly prohibited the use of snowmobiles within the park, he certainly would not have requested that his views on the matter be brought to the Authority’s attention.”
As explained in the above letter, Governor Baxter’s similar objection to the use of motor boats prompted the Authority to ban their use. On April 18, 1966, the Governor also wrote a letter to the Authority expressing his concern about the use of motorcycles. They too were excluded by the Authority soon thereafter.

. The court’s conclusion was based on the fact that Rule 19 created a “total separation” between the two recreational activities that could not otherwise co-exist. The Superior Court justice stated: "[T]he Authority could not reasonably have concluded that the recreational use of snowmobiles would not deter skiiers (sic) and snowshoers from using the Park, or detract from the wilderness experience of those who continued to use it."

. I thus strongly disagree with the Court’s analysis of the issue as if it were merely a balancing between promoting access and preserving the wilderness experience. Such an analysis is premised on the assumption that since the Governor permitted the use of automobiles as a means of access in the summertime, a similar exception to the wilderness mandate can be inferred to permit the use of snowmobiles in the Park in the wintertime. This analysis is wrong for several reasons. First, the entire history of Rule 19 makes clear that the primary objective of snowmobile use is the enjoyment of the ride itself, rather than a means of transportation to facilitate access to the Park to use and enjoy the wilderness “in the right unspoiled manner.” Unlike the use of automobiles in the Park, recreational snowmobiling is more akin to other forms of mechanized recreation such as all-terrain-vehicles and trail bikes. This fact was recognized by the Superior Court in the 1981 decision. The justice in that case stated: “It is probably accurate to refer to [snowmobile] use as recreational since the vehicles themselves are considered to be recreational.” (emphasis added). Second, the Court’s analysis ignores the reluctance the Governor expressed when he decided in 1949 to allow automobiles in the Park for access purposes. He explained that his decision represented "a considerable concession” on his part. This decision should not be construed as signaling an abandonment of the Governor’s intent to preserve the Park for those who are “willing to walk and make an effort to get close to nature," nor does it support the assumption that the Governor would have enlarged his “concession" to permit snowmobiles in the Park. Finally, just as the Governor obviously did not intend that the entire area of the Park be accessible by automobile, he did not intend that the Park be equally accessible at all times of the year. He knew his concession for automobile use was limited to the summertime because the roads are impassible in the wintertime. Corroborating his recognition that wintertime access would be more limited, he postponed to spring*653time his own visit to the Park expressing the view that in the wintertime, the Park is best left "to the wild animals who enjoy the peace and solitude therein.” Accordingly, any attempt to equate the use of snowmobiles to automobile use, to which Governor Baxter made an express but reluctant concession, is clearly unfounded.

. Governor Baxter felt strongly about the need to preserve the wilderness experience in modern society. In a letter to Robert Marshall, dated May 4, 1937, the Governor expressed his full agreement with Marshall’s discussion of the value of the wilderness experience that had been published in a magazine. The magazine article stated:
[We] can afford to sacrifice almost any other value for the sake of retaining something of the primitive.... To countless people the wilderness provides the ultimate delight because it combines the thrills of jeopardy and beauty. It is the last stand for that glorious adventure into the physically unknown that was commonplace in the lives of our ancestors and has always constituted a major factor in the happiness of many exploratory souls. It is also the perfect esthetic experience because it appeals to all of the senses.... It is all of these at the same time, blended into a unity that can only be appreciated with leisure and which is ruined by artificiality.... Quality as well as quantity must enter into any evaluation of competing types of recreation, because one really deep experience may be worth an infinite number of ordinary experiences. Therefore, it is preposterous to hold that the objective of outdoor recreational planning should be to enable the maximum number of people to enjoy every beautiful bit of the outdoors.
All the while year after year, the United States becomes more and more mechanized. The life of one person after another has been saturated by machinery. Human beings require compensations and it seems inevitable that as the machine age expands the need for an escape will also expand.
Marshall, "The Universe of the Wilderness Is Vanishing,” Nature Magazine, April 1937.

. Portland Press Herald, May 3, 1937.