Dist.Ct. did not err in granting defendant-Forrest Service’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-landowner’s action alleging that they were entitled to easement over defendant’s land for vehicular access to their property after plaintiffs had used and maintained said proposed easement since 1972. Fact that plaintiffs can access their property by alternative route, even if said route was unpaved and contained deep ruts, precludes plaintiffs from establishing easement by necessity, since they cannot show that they cannot otherwise access public road from their property via alternative route. Moreover, plaintiffs also could not show for purposes of establishing easement by implication that they would be not be able to enjoy their property without proposed easement.
