In Wagstaff v. Sublette County Bd. of Comm'rs, 53 P.3d 79 (Wyo. 2002), the Court reached a different conclusion about the particular BLM road at issue in that case. The Court said there was no evidence the undeveloped two track road over state and BLM property was a "public road." "The dirt tracks located upon the State and BLM property were not maintained at any time, were solely passable in the summer months at a slow rate of speed, and were only used occasionally by hunters and not the general public." Wagstaff, P15, 53 P.3d at 83. In reaching the conclusion that the BLM road did not meet the statutory definition of a "public road," the Court distinguished McGuire v. McGuire, 608 P.2d 1278, 1286 (Wyo. 1980) as follows: "We also find that the case of McGuire as to its ruling regarding public roads is distinguishable from this case. No evidence was presented to the Board concerning GCC's access via this route other than that mentioned above, whereas in McGuire, the evidence disclosed that the public had traversed the BLM road for many years. In addition, a realty specialist from the BLM testified in McGuire that any United States citizen may travel existing roads or trails on public land unless specifically closed by the BLM and that the BLM had no present plans to close the road there involved. In this case, no evidence was presented that the public generally has the privilege to traverse the unimproved dirt tracks on the State and BLM land involved." (Wagstaff, 53 P.3d at 83-84.)