I have the County Foresters for 4 different Counties on speed dial and in my emailing list. Whoever you dealt with is not on the same page as the ones I have had dealings with in the last couple years. You might want to revisit that. ^^^ If the land between the Open and Closed acres is in another persons name, you have NO legal access to the Open MFL. If you had someone tell you otherwise, they were mistaken and you were smart to keep that email correspondence, because if the County Sheriff were called out, you would have been ticketed for trespassing. I will post a link that explains the whole MFL process in a document from the DNR(some of the leasing info in the document is not correct given the passing of the new laws). Below that link I will post a snip that tells how these Open acres CAN be landlocked so you cannot access them legally.
Link........
http://www.wisconsinforestry.org/files/minutes/MFLAProgramPrimer.pdf
Snip........
The Division was contacted earlier this year by several legislators and asked to identify
how to end leasing on MFL lands. Underlying their request was the stated belief that
public access for recreation is a key benefit of MFL and that allowing landowners to
profit from closing and leasing land was contrary to one important aspect of what the
public values under the law. Landowners have learned how to create deeds
to show the appearance of different ownerships in order to maximize the amount
of lands closed to public recreation. A husband and wife could have 3 different ownerships
between them including: (1)husband, (2) wife, and (3) husband and wife.
Large-block accounts could have many combinations of ownerships including:
(1) 99% industrial ownership and 1% private ownership (president of the company) and
(2) limited liability companies (LLC #1, LLC #2). There are many types of ownerships that
landowners have been able to create. The fact that landowners can
creatively override the legislative limitation on closed acreage under the law fueled their
concerns, particularly when leasing actually encourages landowners to close land and violate the
legislative intent to limit the amount of land any one landowner closes.