¶ 46. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. I would conclude that the boys' activity constituted a "recreational activity" under Wis. Stat. § 895.52 (1995-96)1 and, for this reason, § 895.52 immunizes Paper Recycling from liability. Therefore, I believe that this court should have ruled that summary judgment in favor of Paper Recycling is appropriate.
*318H
¶ 47. The legislature intended Wis. Stat. § 895.52 to "be liberally construed in favor of property owners to protect them from liability." Linville v. City of Janesville, 184 Wis. 2d 705, 715, 516 N.W.2d 427 (1994) (quoting 1983 Wis. Act 418, the act creating § 895.52); see also Verdoljak v. Mosinee Paper Corp., 200 Wis. 2d 624, 638, 547 N.W.2d 602 (1996) (noting legislative intent); Ervin v. City of Kenosha, 159 Wis. 2d 464, 476-77, 464 N.W.2d 654 (1991) ("The clear legislative intent was to construe sec. 895.52, Stats., in favor of landowners to protect them from liability."). Accordingly, it worded the statute in broad language: "[N]o owner and no officer, employe or agent of an owner is liable for the death of, any injury to, or any death or injury caused by, a person engaging in a recreational activity on the owner's property-"2 Wis. Stat. § 895.52(2)(b). Nonetheless, the majority of this court in the present case takes two unprecedented strides around the legislative directive and plain language of § 895.52 and, in doing so, unduly narrows the scope of the statutory term "recreational activity."
A
¶ 48. First, rather than examining the totality of the circumstances surrounding the boys' activity, the majority focuses its analysis almost entirely upon a single momentary diversion from that activity. This marks a sharp break from precedent.
¶ 49. In Linville, this court first set forth its analytical framework for examining whether an activity is a "recreational activity," as defined by § 895.52. In that *319case, three persons drove a van to a city-owned pond in order to prepare to go fishing at the pond the next day. 184 Wis. 2d at 711-12. While at the pond, the van became stuck in mud. Id. at 712. The persons thus attempted to dislodge the van from the mud. Id. However, the van jumped forward into the pond, drowning two of the persons. Id.
¶ 50. On review of the subsequent lawsuit against the city, this court explained that the test to determine whether a property user is engaged in a recreational activity "is one which considers the purpose and nature of the activity in addition to the user's intent... .The test requires examination of all aspects of the activity." Id. at 716 (emphasis added). In light of this test, while examining the facts of the case, we did not focus our analysis on the fact that at the timé immediately surrounding the accident, the persons were pushing their van out of mud — an activity probably not within the scope of § 895.52. Rather, we looked to the persons' primary activity: "to look at fishing areas and to prepare for fishing the next day." Id. at 717. Because the persons' primary activity-fishing — is a recreational activity under § 895.52, we concluded that § 895.52 conferred immunity upon the city. Id.
¶ 51. Linville illustrates that recreational activities are defined by the totality of the circumstances surrounding the property user's primary activity. Temporary diversions from the primary activity do not alter the purpose and nature of the activity for purposes of § 895.52 analysis. Accord Schultz v. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co., 229 Wis. 2d 513, 519-20, 600 N.W.2d 243 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding that the momentary diversion of chasing a runaway steer did not change the *320recreational activity of attending a fair into "something different").
¶ 52. In the present case the majority abandons the Linville analysis. The majority predicates its holding on the fact that at the time immediately surrounding the accident at issue, the boys had lit fires. However, the record indicates that this was not the boys' primary activity.
¶ 53. The only two documents in the record that provide insight regarding the boys' activity on May 28, 1997, are affidavits by Ronald Murray and Andy Barney, the boys who accompanied Daniel Devenport onto Paper Recycling's premises.3 Ronald Murray's affidavit provides in pertinent part:
After school on May 28,19971 got together with Danny Devenport and Andy Barney and we decided to enter the business premises of Paper Recycling through a hole in the fence around the business.
*321There were large bales of paper stacked in the yard and we liked to play among the bales of paper. We had found that there were tunnels among the paper bales and we could crawl through the tunnels and reach forts or rooms within the stacks of paper bales where we could play games. Our purpose in entering the premises that day was to play among the bales of paper.
On May 28, 1997 the three of us entered through the hole in the fence. There was no one around and we began playing among the bales of paper. I had with me that day a box of stick matches and all three of us played with the matches among the bales of paper. We all lit matches and lit small fires in the paper.
After a time we proceeded down one of the tunnels in the paper bales and spent some time in a fort or room among the bales. We then noticed that there was fire at the far end of the tunnel in the area where we had previously been lighting the matches.
Andy Barney's affidavit provides substantially the same account:
Prior to May 28, 1997, Danny Devenport, Ron Murray and I would occasionally play at the business premises of Paper Recycling. There were large bales of paper stacked in the yard at Paper Recycling, and we liked to play among the bales of paper. The bales of paper were stacked so that there were tunnels through which we would crawl to reach forts or rooms within the stacks of paper bales where we played games.
On May 28, 1997, Danny Devenport, Ron Murray and I went to the business premises of Paper Recycling after school to play amongst the bales of paper. On that day, the three of us entered through an opening in the fence. There was no one around and we began to play among the bales of paper.
*322Ron Murray had brought a box of stick matches that day, and all three of us played with the matches among the bales of paper. After a time, we proceeded down one of the tunnels in the paper bales and spent some time in a fort or room among the bales. It was then that we noticed that there was a fire at the far end of the tunnel in the area where we had been previously playing.
¶ 54. These documents indicate that the primary purpose and nature of the boys' activity was climbing and playing among the paper bales. To be sure, the boys lit fires on Paper Recycling's premises. However, the evidence shows that they did so only as a temporary diversion before crawling into another "room" and continuing their primary activity.
¶ 55. I recognize that, as the majority notes, the boys' affidavits are subjective. And I agree with the majority that in general, although a property user's subjective intent is relevant, it is not controlling as to whether he or she is engaged in a recreational activity. However, in the present case, the boys' affidavits are the only relevant evidence before this court. Consequently, the court necessarily should have based its ruling on the evidence in the affidavits.
¶ 56. Nevertheless, the majority ignores the affidavits and concludes that "[t]he goal of the boys' activity was to light matches and start fires." Majority op. at ¶ 27. Not only is there no evidence in the record to support such a proposition, but the boys' affidavits directly contradict this conclusion.
¶ 57. The affidavits, the sole evidence on point, show that the boys' primary activity was climbing and playing among the paper bales. Thus, had the majority properly applied Linville to the evidence in the record and focused on the boys' primary activity — climbing *323and playing among the bales of paper — rather than upon a single, temporary diversion during the activity, it would have determined that the boys were engaged in an "outdoor activity," substantially similar to "exploring caves" and "rock-climbing." Wis. Stat. § 895.52(l)(g) (listing "exploring caves" and "rock-climbing" as recreational activities). For this reason, § 895.52 should apply. See majority op. at ¶ 20 (explaining that § 895.52(2)(b) immunity applies to outdoor activities that are "substantially similar" to the recreational activities listed in § 895.52(l)(g)).
B
¶ 58. The majority opinion also is problematic because it gives great weight to the nature of Paper Recycling's property. This ignores the plain text of § 895.52, legislative intent, and this court's precedent.
¶ 59. Section 895.52 does not premise liability on the nature of the property on which a person engages in a recreational activity. Section 895.52(2)(b) immunizes property owners against liability for injury or death caused by or to "a person engaging in a recreational activity on the owner's property." Section 895.52(l)(f) defines "property" in pertinent part as "real property and buildings, structures and improvements thereon, and the waters of the state." Both of these provisions are clear and unambiguous. Verdoljak, 200 Wis. 2d at 634. And neither of these provisions contains any limiting language regarding the "nature" of property to which the statute applies. Hence, the plain text of the statute indicates that immunity attaches to any "recre*324ational activity," regardless of the nature of the property on which the activity occurs.4
¶ 60. That § 895.52 is blind to the nature of an owner's property is further evidenced by the statute's legislative history.5 Prior to May 1984 when § 895.52 became law, recreational immunity was governed by Wis. Stat. § 29.68 (1981-82).6 The prefatory language to Ch. 89, Laws of 1963, the act that created § 29.68, explained the statute as "relating to the limitations on *325liability of landowners who open private lands for recreational purposes." The legislature subsequently altered this language several times, thus redefining the intended scope of the statute: Ch. 190, Laws of 1965 applied to "a landowner who gives another permission to use his land for a recreational purpose"; § 1, Ch. 75, Laws of 1977 applied to "landowners who permit people to cut or remove wood from their land"; and Ch. 123, Laws of 1977 applied to "landowners who allow their land to be used for certain outdoor recreational activities." Verdoljak, 200 Wis. 2d at 633. But although the legislature altered this prefatory language, it consistently indicated that § 29.68 applied only to specific types of "opened" property.
¶ 61. In May 1984 the legislature repealed § 29.68 and enacted § 895.52. 1983 Wis. Act 418. In doing so, the legislature made clear that § 895.52 "is intended to overrule any previous Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions interpreting § 29.68 of the statutes if the decision is more restrictive than or inconsistent with the provisions of this act."7 1983 Wis. Act 418. As this court later observed:
*326[T]he newly created statute [§ 895.52] is essentially a complete rewrite, containing none of the previous references to ’open[ing] land1....
The unambiguous language of the [new] recreational use statute sets the following precondition for immunity — that the injury be to or caused by "a person engaging in a recreational activity on the owner's property."
Verdoljak, 200 Wis. 2d at 633-34 (quoting § 895.52(2)(b)). Based on this observation and the language in § 895.52, we thus concluded that the legislature consciously decided to remove the nature of property from consideration when assessing statutory recreational immunity. Id. at 631, 633-34. Accordingly, to date, this court consistently has held that "the test to determine whether an activity is recreational focuses on the 'nature of the activity,' not the nature of the property." Sievert v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 190 Wis. 2d 623, 632, 528 N.W.2d 413 (1995); see also Verdoljak, 200 Wis. 2d at 631.
¶ 62. Despite this overwhelming authority to the contrary, the majority asserts that the nature of property can be a "significant factor" to § 895.52 analysis. Majority op. at ¶ 24. To support this assertion, the majority cites a single line in Linville, 184 Wis. 2d at 717, where this court considered the fact that a person was "at a recreational facility which is open for public use, looking at potential fishing areas^" in concluding that the person was engaged in a recreational activity. But had the majority examined this line in the context of the Linville opinion rather than citing it in an analytical vacuum, it would have recognized that Linville *327does not lend any support to its "nature of the property" analysis.
¶ 63. As explained above, the evidence in Linville showed that several persons who allegedly were examining property in preparation to fish there the following day drowned while pushing a van out of mud. Id. at 712, 717. But because the persons drowned while dislodging the van and not while fishing, this court examined the nature of the property to determine whether it supported the allegations that the person intended to fish there the next day. Id. That is, this court examined the nature of the property only insofar as it evidenced the credibility of the witnesses' account of the events leading to the accident. We did not consider the nature of the property as defining the activity.
¶ 64. In the present case, the nature of Paper Recycling's premises supports the boys' accounts that they were climbing and playing prior to the fire. It is undisputed that the property contained large bales of paper. It further is undisputed that between these bales of paper, there were spaces in which the boys could climb and play. Thus, to the extent that Linville suggests that this court should consider the nature of Paper Recycling's premises, the nature of the property lends credence to the boys' descriptions of the events at issue.
¶ 65. Nevertheless, the majority looks beyond the nature of the property as evidence of the credibility of the boys' affidavits and considers the nature of the property as defining the boys' activity. The majority explains that the closed, industrial "nature of Paper Recycling's property is crucial to our examination of the nature of the boys' activity."8 Majority op. at ¶ 25. *328Hence, it reasons that the nature of Paper Recycling's property transmogrifies the boys' climbing and playing from a recreational activity into something else. -
¶66. The majority's reasoning is counterintui-tive for at least four reasons. First, the majority's reasoning contravenes the general canons of statutory construction. "It is a well-recognized rule of statutory construction that nontechnical words and phrases are to be construed according to their common and ordinary usage." Ervin, 159 Wis. 2d at 483-84 (citation omitted). Pursuant to this rule, the enumerated "recreational activities" in Wis. Stat. § 895.52 should be construed in light of their common and ordinary usage.
¶ 67. However, under the majority's "nature of the property" analysis, the enumerated activities in § 895.52 cannot be construed in light of their common meanings. For example, § 895.52 lists "bicycling" *329among its enumerated recreational activities. The ordinary and common meaning of "bicycling" is "[t]o ride or travel on a bicycle." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 183 (3d ed. 1992).9 Thus, pursuant to the rule of statutory construction set forth above, a reasonable person reading § 895.52 would expect that the act of riding or traveling on a bicycle for purposes of exercise, relaxation, or pleasure always is a "recreational activity" to which the statute applies. But under the majority:s "nature of the property" analysis, while § 895.52 may apply to riding or traveling on a bicycle for such purposes in a park, it may not apply to riding or traveling on a bicycle for the same purposes in an industrial lot. Under this reasoning, the statutory term "bicycling" does not necessarily mean "to ride or travel on a bicycle" for recreational purposes. Rather, the term means "to ride or travel on a bicycle" for recreational purposes in areas where a court determines such an activity is appropriate. Consequently, pursuant to the majority's reasoning, the definition of "bicycling," as used in § 895.52, is more limited in scope than the statute or the term’s ordinary and common meaning would suggest.
¶ 68. Second, the majority's reasoning creates artificial distinctions between activities to which § 895.52 potentially may apply. Many modern sports and activities such as BMX bicycling, skateboarding, and in-line skating are best suited for an urban environment. And many of these sports and activities arguably are or are exceedingly similar to enumerated "recreational activities" such as "skating" or "bicy*330cling." But pursuant to the majority's reasoning, while § 895.52 applies to "skating" on a pond in a public park (i.e., a "recreational area"), for example, it may not apply to in-line skating in the parking lot of a commercial business.
¶ 69. Third, the majority's analysis could lead to absurd and unreasonable results. In accordance with the majority's analysis, if a person is injured in an area intended for recreating — such as a park — he or she may not pursue a claim for the injuries. On the other hand, if a person is injured during the same activity in an area where the activity is dangerous, prohibited, or even illegal — such as an industrial lot — he or she may sue the property owner. Thus, the majority's analysis affords greater rights to persons who engage in their activities in dangerous, "non-recreational" areas than it does to persons who exercise caution, discretion, and common sense. Contra Verdoljak, 200 Wis. 2d at 636 ("We reject the notion that the recreational use statute could confer greater protection to a trespasser than to one who was lawfully using the premises....").
¶ 70. And fourth, the majority's analysis may suggest to property owners such as Paper Recycling to remove fences, barricades, and other protective devices in order to give their lands the appearance of a "recreational area." Owners who maintain such protections run the risk of owning what the majority may deem "non-recreational property" and, thus, being held liable for users' injuries. But if the owners give their properties — regardless of danger — the appearance of a "recreational area," they less likely will be subjected to lawsuits. Cf. Ervin, 159 Wis. 2d at 477 ("If liability were imposed on landowners for negligence in failing to provide adequate safety measures, it would encourage landowners to provide no safety measures.").
*331¶ 71. I cannot believe that the legislature intended § 895.52 to promote any of these policies or lead to such absurd results. Accordingly, I cannot join the majority in abandoning Linville, Sievert, Verdoljak, and our other precedent on point, and adopting this unworkable reasoning.
II
¶ 72. I recognize that proper application of § 895.52 may lead to harsh results, and I agree with Justice Bradley's observation that the legislature should consider revisiting this statute. But I further recognize that while there may be reason to dislike § 895.52, there are limits to courts' authority: "[W]hen a legislative mandate is 'clearly expressed and there is no warrant for alternative construction, a court may not impose its view of what the law should be.'" Ervin, 159 Wis. 2d at 478 (citation omitted). Policy considerations weighing in favor of creating exceptions to statutory mandates are best left to the established province of the legislature. Seider v. O'Connell, 2000 WI 76, ¶ 40, 236 Wis. 2d 211, 612 N.W.2d 659.
¶ 73. In sum, I believe that had the majority properly applied § 895.52 in light of the legislative intent and plain text of the statute and in accord with this court's precedent, it would have concluded that the statute applies in this case. Accordingly, the court should have concluded that summary judgment in favor of Paper Recycling is appropriate.
¶ 74. In refusing to grant summary judgment for Paper Recycling, the majority has contravened the purpose and text of § 895.52, and has ignored our precedent on point. Unlike the majority, I believe that if § 895.52 is to be limited or amended, the legisla*332ture — not this court — is the proper body to make the changes. For this reason, I dissent.
¶ 75. I am authorized to state that Justice DAVID T. PROSSER joins this dissent.
All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 1995-96 version unless otherwise indicated.
Section 895.52(1)(d) defines "owner" in part as an owner, lessee, or occupant of property.
In footnote 4 of the majority opinion, the majority references the transcript of a recorded statement by Andy Barney, which it characterizes as evidence regarding the purpose and nature of the boys' activity. That document states in pertinent part:
IQ] What was Danny Devenport doing before you noticed the fire in the paper bails [sic]?
[A] He was sitting in a corner in one of the rooms.
[Q] How long had he been sitting in one of the rooms before you noticed the fire?
[A] Five minutes.
The majority is correct insofar as it explains that this transcript does not demonstrate that the boys were engaged in a recreational activity. However, this transcript also fails to indicate what the boys had been doing more than five minutes before the fire. That is, it contains no evidence of what the boys' primary activity was.
The majority seems to suggest that because § 895.52 does not specifically prohibit courts from considering the nature of property when determining whether the statute applies to a given case, this court may graft such a consideration onto the statutory test. However, as explained above, the legislature intended § 895.52 to be broadly construed. Further, the legislature wrote § 895.52 in broad terms and unequivocally defined the "property" to which the statute applies. In light of these facts, I do not find it reasonable to conclude based on an absence of language in § 895.52 to the contrary, that the legislature intended this court to introduce limitations to the statute, thus narrowing the scope and rewriting the definition of the statutory term "property."
Although this court may not tap legislative history to show that a statute is ambiguous, we may use legislative history to support a conclusion that a statute is clear on its face. Seider v. O'Connell, 2000 WI 76, ¶¶ 51-52, 236 Wis. 2d 211, 612 N.W.2d 659.
Section 29.68 of the Wisconsin Statutes (1981-82) provided in pertinent part:
Liability of landowners. (1) Safe for entry; no warning. An owner, lessee or occupant of premises owes no duty to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, hiking, snowmobiling, berry picking, water sports, sight-seeing, cutting or removing wood, climbing of observation towers or recreational purposes, or to give warning of any unsafe condition or use of or structure or activity on the premises to persons entering for such purpose....
It appears that the legislature included this language in part to show its dissatisfaction with this court's decision in LePoidevin v. Wilson, which, while narrowing the scope of § 29.68, noted that "[t]he language of the statute leaves uncertain the types of lands, persons, and events intended to be included within its purview." 111 Wis. 2d 116, 128-29, 330 N.W.2d 555 (1983), superceded by statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.52. As an associate of a sponsor of 1983 Wis. Act 418 explained:
[T]his bill is to do away with some of the great uncertainty of our present landowner liability law. This is particularly important because of the Supreme Court's 1983 decision in LePoidevin v. Wilson, 111 Wis. 2d 116.
*326Letter from John R. Zillmer to Jim S. Christenson, Bureau of Legal Services, Dept, of Natural Res. 2 (June 2,1983).
The majority even goes so far as to suggest that the subjective intent of a landowner to open his or her property to *328recreational use should be a factor for courts to consider under § 895.52 analysis. Majority op. at ¶ 25. This proposition is without legal support.
In Linville, this court held that the subjective intent of the property user is relevant to whether a particular activity falls within the scope of § 895.52. Linville v. City of Janesville, 184 Wis. 2d 705, 716, 516 N.W.2d 427 (1994). Linville did not, however, mention the subjective intent of the property owner.
Indeed, in Verdoljak v. Mosinee Paper Corp., 200 Wis. 2d 624, 628, 547 N.W.2d 602 (1996), this court specifically rejected the proposition that § 895.52 conditions immunity upon the property owner's subjective intent to open his or her land to recreational activity. As we explained: "[T]he concept of 'openness'. . .has never been and is not now. . .an 'element' of the statute that a landowner needs to satisfy in order to be afforded immunity." Id. at 634 n.6. "The focus is on the activity of the person who enters and uses the land, not upon any obligation on the part of the owner to affirmatively demonstrate that the land is open." Id. at 631.
"The ordinary and common meaning of a word may be established by definition of a recognized dictionary." Ervin v. City of Kenosha, 159 Wis. 2d 464, 483-84, 464 N.W.2d 654 (1991) (citation omitted).