Case Title: PINE BAR RANCH, LLC; and OWEN C. TORREY, MARGERY TORREY, and ELLEN TORREY V. HOMER L. LUTHER and HELEN P. LUTHER and THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF FREMONT, DOUGLAS L. THOMPSON, GARY JENNINGS, PAT HICKERSON, LANNY APPLEGATE, and T. CROSBY ALLEN, II, in their official capacities as COMMISSIONERS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF FREMONT COUNTY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 06-108

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2007-03-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
PINE BAR RANCH, LLC; and OWEN C. TORREY, MARGERY TORREY, and ELLEN TORREY V. HOMER L. LUTHER and HELEN P. LUTHER and THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF FREMONT, DOUGLAS L. THOMPSON, GARY JENNINGS, PAT HICKERSON, LANNY APPLEGATE, and T. CROSBY ALLEN, II, in their official capacities as COMMISSIONERS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF FREMONT COUNTY2007 WY 35152 P.3d 1062Case Number: 06-108Decided: 03/02/2007
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2006

 
 
PINE BAR RANCH, LLC; and OWEN C. 
TORREY, MARGERY TORREY, and ELLEN TORREY,

 
 
Appellants

(Cross-Petitioners/Respondents),

 
 
v.

 
 
HOMER L. LUTHER and HELEN P. 
LUTHER,

 
 
Appellees

(Petitioners),

 
 
and

 
 
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 
OF THE COUNTY OF FREMONT, DOUGLAS L. THOMPSON, GARY JENNINGS, PAT HICKERSON, 
LANNY APPLEGATE, and T. CROSBY ALLEN, II, in their official capacities as 
COMMISSIONERS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF FREMONT 
COUNTY,

 
 
Appellees

(Respondents).

 
 
Appeal from the 
DistrictCourtofFremontCounty

The Honorable Norman E. 
Young, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellants:

 
 
David B. 
Hooper, of Hooper Law Offices, P.C., Riverton, Wyoming; Tom A. Glassberg, of 
Hooper Law Offices, P.C., Teton Village, Wyoming.  Argument by Mr. 
Hooper.

Representing Appellees:

 
 
Joel M. 
Vincent, of Vincent & Vincent, Riverton, Wyoming; Paul J. Hickey, Roger C. 
Fransen, and Brandi L. Monger, of Hickey & Evans, LLP, Cheyenne, 
Wyoming.  Argument by Mr. 
Hickey.

                                                

Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

            

[¶1]      Homer and Helen 
Luther are the owners of a parcel of real property located in FremontCounty.  They filed an application with the Board 
of County Commissioners of FremontCounty ("Board") to establish a private 
road, claiming they did not have legal access from their property to a public 
road.  After a hearing, the Board 
determined that the Luthers did not meet their burden of establishing necessity 
and denied their application.  The 
Board found that the Luthers could access their property by way of a public 
road, the Surrell Creek 
Road.1  The Luthers filed a petition for review 
with the district court contesting the Board's finding that the Surrell Creek Road 
is a public road.  The district 
court agreed with the Luthers and reversed the Board's decision.  Pine Bar Ranch filed this appeal.  We find that Surrell Creek Road 
is not a public road as contemplated by our private road statute and will affirm 
the decision of the district court.  
 

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      Pine Bar Ranch 
and the Luthers present several issues for review.  We find one issue 
dispositive:

 
 
Did the Board of County 
Commissioners of Fremont County err when it determined that the Surrell Creek 
Road is a public road for purposes of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101 et seq.?

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      The Luthers 
purchased real property in FremontCounty known as the LHart Ranch in 
1991.  This property is located in 
the North ForkCanyon of the PopoAgieRiver.  At the time the Luthers purchased the 
property, they were aware that legal access to the Ranch was questionable.  According to the Luthers, the LHart 
Ranch was historically accessed by using the North Fork Road.  The North Fork Road passes over land owned by 
several private parties, tribal trust property, and BLM land.  A recorded right-of-way does not exist 
for the portions of the North Fork 
Road that crosses tribal trust property and BLM 
land.  However, the Luthers 
previously utilized this road without interference.

 
 
[¶4]      Around 
Thanksgiving of 2003, the manager of the LHart Ranch was traveling on the 
portion of the North Fork 
Road that traverses tribal trust property and 
received a citation from a tribal game warden for trespassing.2  The issuance of the citation caused the 
Luthers to believe that access to their property was now in jeopardy.  As a result, they began efforts to 
secure easements for access to their property.  

 
 
[¶5]      The Luthers' 
efforts to obtain easements were ultimately unsuccessful.  On December 22, 2003, the Luthers filed 
an application for establishment of a private road.3  The application alleged that the LHart 
Ranch was landlocked.  The Luthers 
submitted a proposed route for a private road, which substantially followed the 
historical access over the North 
Fork Road.  
The Luthers proposed a change in the access in an attempt to avoid 
approximately 400 yards of the road which crosses tribal trust property.  

 
 
[¶6]      Pine Bar Ranch 
objected to the Luthers' petition, claiming that the Luthers were not 
landlocked.  Pine Bar Ranch asserted 
that the Luthers have access to their property via a public road known as the 
Surrell Creek 
Road.  
Pine Bar Ranch further claimed that the Luthers and their neighbors 
historically used the Surrell Creek 
Road to access their respective properties.  

 
 
[¶7]      In accordance 
with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101(e), the Board held a hearing on the 
application.4  The Board entered its Findings of Fact, 
Conclusions of Law & Order Denying Second Amended Application on January 3, 
2005.  The Board ultimately 
concluded that the Surrell Creek 
Road is a public road and, therefore, the Luthers 
failed to meet their burden of establishing necessity.  The Luthers filed a petition for review 
in the district court.  The district 
court reversed the Board's decision finding Surrell Creek Road is not a public road and 
remanded the case to the Board.  
Pine Bar Ranch filed this appeal.

 
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 
 
[¶8]      The Wyoming 
Administrative Procedures Act governs our review of a Board's decision on an 
application for a private road under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101.  Reidy v. Stratton Sheep Co., 2006 WY 69, 
¶ 7, 135 P.3d 598, 602 (Wyo. 2006).  
Section 16-3-114(c), of the Act, provides in pertinent 
part:

 
 
            
 (c) To the extent necessary 
to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all 
relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, 
and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. In 
making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole record or 
those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of 
prejudicial error. The reviewing court shall:

. . . 

            
(ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions 
found to be:

     (A) 
Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance 
with law;

     . 
. . 

     (E) 
Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an 
agency hearing provided by statute.

 
 

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) 
(LexisNexis 2005).  We stand in the 
same position as the district court and review the Board's decision as if it had 
come directly to this Court from the Board.  Reidy, ¶ 7, 135 P.3d  at 602; Wagstaff v. Sublette County Bd. of County 
Comm'rs, 2002 WY 123, ¶ 7, 53 P.3d 79, 81 (Wyo. 2002).  

 
 
We examine the entire 
record to determine whether substantial evidence supports the administrative 
agency's findings of fact. We may not substitute our judgment for that of the 
agency when substantial evidence supports its decision. Substantial evidence is 
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the 
agency's conclusions.  We do not, 
however, defer to an agency's conclusions of law. If the correct rule of law has 
not been correctly applied, the agency's errors are to be corrected. 

 
 

Wagstaff, ¶ 7, 53 P.3d  at 81 
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶9]      Wyoming's private road 
statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101 et 
seq., provides the sole remedy for landlocked owners to obtain access to 
their property.  Reidy, ¶ 10, 135 P.3d  at 603.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101 (LexisNexis 
2005), provides in pertinent part:

(a)               
Any person whose land has 
no outlet to, nor connection with a public road, may file an application in 
writing with the board of county commissioners in the county where his land is 
located for a private road leading from his land to some convenient public road. 
. . .

 
 
. . 
.

 
 
            
(h)        If at 
the completion of the hearing the board finds that the applicant has satisfied 
the requirements of this section and access is necessary because the applicant 
has no legally enforceable access, the board shall appoint three (3) 
disinterested freeholders and electors of the county, as viewers and appraisers. 
. . . 

 
 
Essentially, this statute 
provides that the applicant must first show that he has no "legally enforceable 
means by which he can gain access" to a public road.  Miller v. Bradley, 4 P.3d 882, 886 (Wyo. 
2000); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101(a)(ii).  
Once that showing is made, the applicant has demonstrated necessity as a 
matter of law.  Miller, 4 P.3d  at 886.  

 
 
[¶10]   In this case, the Luthers filed an 
application with the Board seeking establishment of a private road.  The Board denied the application finding 
that the Luthers failed to demonstrate necessity.  The Board's denial is based upon its 
conclusion that the Surrell Creek 
Road is a public road by which the Luthers currently 
have access to their property.5  Pine Bar Ranch contends that the Board's 
findings in this regard are supported by substantial evidence and that the 
district court's order finding to the contrary should be 
reversed.

 
 
[¶11]   Although the parties hotly dispute 
whether the Surrell Creek 
Road is a public or private road, some basic facts 
concerning the road are undisputed.  
The Surrell Creek 
Road is a two-track dirt trail that was constructed 
in the 1940's by the Civilian Conservation Corps for purposes of forest and 
range administration and fire control.  
Other than a recorded right-of-way for approximately one mile of the 
Surrell Creek Road leading to the Boulder Flats Subdivision, no other recorded 
right-of-way exists for the remaining several miles of the Surrell Creek Road to 
the LHart Ranch.6 

[¶12]   Our private road statute does not 
supply a definition for the term "public road."  McGuire v. McGuire, 608 P.2d 1278, 1287 (Wyo. 1980).  Other Wyoming statutes providing a 
definition of a public road are of little assistance in this case because the 
Surrell Creek Road is located within the boundaries of the Wind River Indian 
Reservation and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(under the Secretary of the Interior) ("BIA") and the Joint Business Council of 
the Arapahoe and Shoshone Tribes.7  See McGuire, 608 P.2d  at 1287 
(explaining that state statutes containing definitions that pertain to state and 
county roads "are not applicable to roads such as the BLM road" because it is 
under the jurisdiction of the United States).  Despite the multi-jurisdictional issue 
presented by the location of the Surrell Creek Road, we can, nonetheless, 
determine the nature of the road for purposes of our private road statutes.  See McGuire, 608 P.2d  at 1287; Reidy, ¶¶ 18-19, 135 P.3d  at 
606.

 
 
[¶13]   We recently addressed a similar 
situation in which a landowner's property potentially could be accessed by a 
federal road.  In Reidy, we were asked to determine 
whether a federal Forest Service road could be considered a public road under 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101.  We held 
that, "as a matter of law, a road over federal lands may be considered a public 
road within the meaning of our private road statutes, provided the 
characteristics of the road indicate it is available to the general 
public."  Reidy, ¶ 19, 135 P.3d  at 606.  Upon reviewing the record in Reidy, we found "voluminous testimony 
and documentary evidence" showing that the Forest Service road had been open to 
the general public.  Id., ¶¶ 15-16, 135 P.3d  at 605.  We also found that the Forest Service 
considered the road a "pretty major road" and that they regularly maintained 
it.  Id., ¶ 15, 135 P.3d  at 605.  A Forest Service employee testified that 
the road was open to the general public, had been publicly used for more than 
forty years, and was in current use by "tourists, hunters, ranchers, farmers, 
and even motorcyclists."  Id., ¶ 16, 135 P.3d  at 605.  The employee also 
testified that the Forest Service did not plan to close the road and that it was 
highly unlikely it would change the public access.  Id.  After consideration of these 
characteristics of the road, we concluded that the Forest Service road was a 
public road for purposes of our private road statute.  Id., ¶¶ 20-21, 
135 P.3d  at 606-607.

 
 
[¶14]   The characteristics of the 
Surrell Creek 
Road are in stark contrast to the characteristics of 
the Forest Service road at issue in Reidy.  The Surrell Creek Road is not recognized as a 
public road by either the Shoshone or Arapahoe Tribes, or by the BIA.  In a letter to the Fremont County 
Commissioners, the Superintendent of the Wind River Agency reiterated that the 
Surrell Creek 
Road is a private road.8  He explained:

 
 
The authority to approve 
all transaction[s] that affect[] lands held in trust by the U.S. Government for 
American Indian Tribes and individual Indians resides with the Secretary of 
Interior.  Specifically, the 
authority to grant Rights-of-way pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 323-328 and 25 CFR Part 
169 has been delegated to the Superintendent, Wind River Agency.  Accordingly, Homer and Helen Luther knew 
or should have known that at the time they purchased the said property that 
there was no Bureau of Indian Affairs recorded right of way or egress to the 
property across American Indian Trust Lands.

 
 
The position taken by the 
Superintendent of the Wind River Agency is further supported by the testimony of 
John Schumacher.  Mr. Schumacher is 
an attorney who was hired by the Luthers to review documents relating to 
rights-of-way across trust lands.  
He testified concerning the status of the Surrell Creek Road 
as follows:

 
 
[Luthers' Attorney]:    Now, are you aware, Mr. 
Schumacher, of a position that's taken by some, that if public money is spent on 
a road over either tribal trust or allotted trust lands, that such expenditure 
renders the road a public road?

 
 
[Mr. Schumacher]:     Yes, I 
am.

 
 
[Luthers' Attorney]:    And what is your knowledge of 
that proposition?

 
 
[Mr. Schumacher]:     The Federal Regulation 25 
CFR, Part 170 and their predecessors provide for two situations where you can 
have a public road over Indian land.  
And also Part 169.  Part 169 
allows for public roads when they're specifically designated as such. . . 
.

            
Under Part 70 - - Part 170.8 provides the free public use for roads - - 
that it's required on roads that are eligible for construction and maintenance 
with federal funds under that part. 

            
Now, to be eligible under that part, several conditions have to be met 
before it's required that access is available to the public. First of all, the 
financial aid that was used to build that road must have been specifically 
appropriated from federal funds for public road purposes.  The road also has to be designated as 
such, a public road, by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Federal Highway 
Administration.  And that also 
includes acquisition of rights-of-way.

 
 
. . . 

 
 
[Luthers' Attorney]:    With regard to 25 CFR, 170, 
did you examine any of the documents concerning what's been called the Sorrel 
Creek Truck Trail?

 
 
[Mr. Schumacher]:  Yes, I have.

 
 
[Luthers' Attorney]:  And do you have an opinion whether those 
documents would meet the four requirements that you earlier mentioned in your 
testimony?

 
 
[Mr. Schumacher]:  No.  The documents indicate that funding was 
available under the Civilian Conservation Corps program for construction of a 
truck trail, which has been called the Sorrel Creek Truck Trail.  The documents submitted indicate that 
that road or truck trail was constructed for the purpose of forest and range 
administration and fire control, to indicate that it was not dedicated to the 
public.   . . . 

            
There is no official grant of right-of-way by the Secretary of Interior. 
. . .

 
 
[Luthers' Attorney]:  So if I understand your testimony, then, 
you're saying that the Sorrel Creek Truck Trail, in your opinion, would not come 
within the purview of 25 CFR, 170.  Is that correct?

 
 
[Mr. Schumacher]:  That is correct.  There has been no acquisition of 
rights-of-way.  It was not funded 
with specific funds for highway purposes.  
It has not been designated as a part of the public road system by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs.  And I 
found no record of it being designated as such by the Federal Highway 
Administration.

 
 
[¶15]   Unlike the "voluminous testimony 
and documentary evidence" presented in Reidy indicating the road was open to 
the general public, the evidence presented in this case indicates that the use 
of the Surrell Creek Road was limited to employees, former employees, and family 
members of the LHart Ranch.  "A 
public road is one that the public generally  not merely a portion of the 
public  is privileged to use."  McGuire, 608 P.2d  at 1288.  See also Wagstaff, ¶ 17, 53 P.3d  at 
83-84 (holding the unimproved dirt tracks did not constitute public roads 
because no evidence was presented that the public generally has the privilege to 
traverse them).  Pine Bar Ranch 
failed to present any evidence of public use.  As a result, the Board's finding that 
the Surrell Creek 
Road is a public road is not supported by substantial 
evidence.  

 
 
[¶16]   Pine Bar Ranch contends that even 
if the Surrell Creek 
Road is not a public road, the Luthers could apply 
for a limited right-of-way to cross the tribal lands.  Pine Bar Ranch points to the letter 
received from the Superintendent of the Wind River Agency which states that the 
BIA is willing "to grant a limited Right of Way to Homer and Helen Luther along 
the existing commonly known Boulder Flats Road for their heirs, employees and 
guest[s] for traditional ranch purposes."  
The Superintendent explained what he meant by a limited right-of-way 
during his testimony as follows:

 
 
Limited right-of-way 
entails egress.  There is no 
taking.  That is the concern of the 
tribes.  It means that there is no 
property [that] goes with that right-of-way.  It's not like we have the rights-of-way 
within the county where we turn the right-of-way over to the county and then 
they control that right-of-way with the state, et cetera, and the county.  This one -- and those are on public 
access.  This is a private 
road.  It means that person has 
egress back and forth and that it cannot be sold with the property as such.  However, if a new tenant would come in, 
or owner, then they could apply for right-of-way and egress.  The tribes are willing to extend that to 
Mr. Luther and his heirs, also to his employees and also to his guests and such 
for traditional farming purposes.

 
 
[¶17]   The Superintendent's offer is 
insufficient to establish access to a public road.  The access contemplated by our private 
road statute must be an "incorporeal right appurtenant to the estate granted, 
not a personal right or one incident to personal property."  Reaves v. Riley, 782 P.2d 1136, 1137 
(Wyo. 
1989).  Furthermore, even if the 
Luthers could have pursued a limited right-of-way from the tribes, they are not 
required to do so before seeking to establish a private road.  See Miller, 4 P.3d  at 887 (finding that 
§ 24-9-101 contains no requirement that other forms of relief be pursued prior 
to seeking the relief available under its provisions).  See also McGuire, 608 P.2d  at 1286; Walton v. Dana, 609 P.2d 461, 463 
(Wyo. 1980); Lindt v. Murray, 895 P.2d 459, 462 
(Wyo. 
1995).     

 
 
[¶18]   Pine Bar Ranch also contends that 
even if the Luthers met their burden of proof that they are landlocked, their 
petition must be dismissed because the Luthers' proposed road did not contain an 
uninterrupted physical connection between the Luthers' land and a public 
road.  We agree with the Luthers' 
that this argument is premature.  
Upon remand, the Board shall appoint viewers and appraisers to locate and 
mark out a convenient private road.  
Any issues related to the location of the private road should be resolved 
in accordance with that process.

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶19]   The Board's finding that the 
Surrell Creek 
Road is a public road is not supported by substantial 
evidence.  The order of the district 
court is affirmed. 

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Surrell 
Creek Road is also known as the Boulder Flats Road, Surrell Creek Truck Trail, 
and the Sorrel Creek 
Road.  To 
avoid confusion, we will refer to the road as the Surrell Creek 
Road.

 
 

2The parties 
dispute whether the manager was on the North Fork Road at the time he was issued 
the citation.  We need not resolve 
this dispute because the Board did not make any findings in this regard.  We simply note this was the event that 
prompted the Luthers to file a private road application and we do not consider 
this unresolved issue as support for either parties' contentions.  

 
 

3This 
application was subsequently amended on January 16, 2004, and on August 16, 
2004.

 
 

4The hearing 
began on June 8, 2004, but due to the length of testimony and the amount of 
evidence, the hearing was continued to June 30, 2004, and December 23, 
2004.

 
 

5The 
pertinent findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by the Board are as 
follows:

  

9.       
This 
Surrell Creek 
Road is a public road for the following 
reasons:

 
 

a.       
Exhibit 
T-[2]7 reveals that in 194[1], the Civilian Conservation Corps (hereinafter 
C.C.C.) created a road for "medium traffic" and that testimony received by the 
Board inferred the use of this road would be limited to forestry and grazing 
purposes.  Because there is no 
timber in the area and some grazing, our experience tells us such a use would 
result in the Sorrell Creek 
Road [sic] receiving "light" use.  Therefore, use of the term "medium 
traffic" infers that the intended use of the road would allow for continuance of 
public traffic.  Furthermore, 
Exhibit T-[2]7C refers to the C.C.C. funds being re-appropriated for the Sorrell 
Creek Road [sic] and discusses graveling, bridges and other things to improve 
the ability to travel.

 
 

b.       
Exhibit 
T-29 relates to Exhibit T-27.  
Specifically, Exhibit T-29 states "Upon investigation of the bridge on 
the main irrigation canal, on the road to the Pine Bar and Hart Ranch" comes 
from a 1942 document that clearly illustrates that the Surrell Creek Road is, in 
fact, an established road as it says, to the Pine Bar and Hart Ranch [Hart Ranch 
now the Applicants' land].

 
 

c.       
Exhibit 
T-19A, an order from the Fremont County Commissioners establishing a private 
road for applicant J.C. Booth [Applicants' neighboring property] in 1942 states 
"a line commencing at a point in the truck road established by the Indian 
Department" refers to the Surrell Creek Road being a point of public 
access.

 
 

d.       
Exhibit 
T-32, a 1983 Resolution of the Shoshone and Arapahoe Tribes for the Wind River 
Reservation specifically states that pursuant to 25 C.F.R. 169, a "right-of-way 
easement for public road purposes for a period without limitation".  The Bureau of Indian Affairs as the 
grantee and the United 
States as the grantor for a public road across 
tribal owned lands.

 
 

e.       
Exhibit 
T-33 is the actual grant of the easement described in Exhibit T-32 for 
specifically, a "public road."

 
 

f.         
Exhibit 
T-51, a December 17, 2004 letter from Bureau of Indian Affairs, Superintendent 
for the Wind River Agency George E. Gover states that "[t]he search of the 
records provides that the earliest access to lands in the North Fork Canyon was 
along this route" referring to the Sorrell Creek Road [sic] and that testimony 
provided that said road has been in existence for at least 80-90 
years.

 
 

10.   Therefore, 
the [Luthers] have a legally enforceable access to their      
land.

 
 

6At first 
blush, the Board's finding, 9(d), appears to contradict this statement.  That finding 
states:

 
 

d.       
Exhibit 
T-32, a 1983 Resolution of the Shoshone and Arapahoe Tribes for the Wind River 
Reservation specifically states that pursuant to 25 C.F.R. 169, a "right-of-way 
easement for public road purposes for a period without limitation".  The Bureau of Indian Affairs as the 
grantee and the United 
States as the grantor for a public road across 
tribal owned lands.

 
 
However, 
upon review of the record and the briefs submitted by both parties, it is clear 
this right-of-way refers to a one-mile portion of the road leading to the 
Boulder Flats Subdivision and does not extend to the remainder of the road 
leading to the Luthers' property.

 
 

7Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 24-1-133(b) (LexisNexis 2005) provides:  "For purposes of this section public 
road' means any passageway . . . to which a governing body has acquired 
unrestricted legal right for the public to use the passageway."  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-1-101 (LexisNexis 
2005), Public highways defined and established; creation by adverse possession, 
is more specific and provides in pertinent part:

  
(a) On and after January 1, 1924, all roads within this state shall be highways, 
which have been or may be declared by law to be state or county highways. It 
shall be the duty of the several boards of county commissioners, within their 
respective counties, prior to said date, to determine what, if any, such roads 
now or heretofore travelled but not heretofore officially established and 
recorded, are necessary or important for the public use as permanent roads, and 
to cause such roads to be recorded, or if need be laid out, established and 
recorded, and all roads recorded as aforesaid, shall be highways. No other roads shall be highways unless and 
until lawfully established as such by official authority. Except, nothing 
contained herein shall be construed as preventing the creation or establishment 
of a public highway right-of-way with reference to state and county highways 
under the common-law doctrines of adverse possession or prescription either 
prior to or subsequent to the enactment hereof. . . .

 (Emphasis added.) 

 
 

8We note, as 
further indication that the Surrell 
Creek Road is considered a private road, that there 
are several signs posted along the road which state that the Wind River Indian 
Reservation is closed to trespassing without a permit.  The parties dispute whether these signs 
indicate that travel on the road itself is trespassing or whether venturing off 
the road is trespassing.  The Board 
did not make any findings on this issue and we need not resolve it for purposes 
of this appeal.