Listening sessions indicate people finally realize the Stewardship Fund is helping hunters, not hurting their cause.

Wisconsinites often compete for time and space on public lands, but those who spoke at state-sponsored "listening sessions" in early April seemed to realize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund provides more grounds to unite people than divide them.

The sessions in Waukesha, Eau Claire and Green Bay were conducted by the Stewardship Subcommittee of the Natural Resources Board. Their mission was to hear what folks think of the program's new access rule, which requires future Stewardship lands be open to hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking and cross-country skiing.

When reviewing each purchase, the DNR Board can prohibit one or more of those activities to protect public safety, unique animals or plants, or to "accommodate other usership patterns."

Good enough, but why create new access rules 20 years into the program?

When the Legislature and Gov. Jim Doyle reauthorized Stewardship last fall, they boosted its funding from $60 million to $86 million annually from 2011-20. Some folks claimed Stewardship was denying hunters access to lands bought with that public money.

OK. Let's look for fingerprints.

In the Big Stew's first 20 years, the DNR acquired 447,000 acres of formerly private land. Further, 54 private land-trusts and conservation groups acquired or protected 38,500 acres by matching Stewardship grants with their own money; and local governments matched Stewardship grants for an additional 15,950 acres.

Of those 501,450 total acres, 92 percent are open to hunting and 98 percent to fishing. More specifically, public hunting is allowed on 95 percent of the DNR's Stewardship lands.

Closed areas are typically parking lots, access trails or sites too near homes.

Meanwhile, 3,800 acres (24 percent) of Stewardship lands owned or protected by local governments are open to hunting. Before turning purple, let's concede these closed lands are usually small strips along urban parks, walking trails or river corridors.

Also realize that until eight years ago, Stewardship money could be used for ballparks, playgrounds and even golf courses, real drags on hunting participation. Former Sen. Kevin Shibilski stepped in during the 2000 budget process to end those unintended payments.

What about lands protected by nonprofit groups?

Public hunting is allowed on 91 percent of the 33,500 acres they own. When we add the groups' 5,000 acres in conservation easements to protect unique lands from development, public hunting falls to 72 percent.

None of these numbers indicate hunting rights were abused during the Stewardship's first two decades. In fact, hunters benefited greatly. None of those lands offered public hunting before Stewardship began, and all taxpayers contribute to those purchases, not just the 12 to 15 percent of us who buy hunting, fishing or trapping licenses.

And although the DNR is charged with managing state-owned Stewardship lands, the agency does not help local governments and nonprofit groups to manage theirs. So, even with a 24 percent hunting rate on lands owned by counties or municipalities, no hunter should prattle about lost rights under Stewardship.

Neither should they play our version of the race card by claiming every closure is an attack by anti-hunters or discrimination by nonhunters. Such accusations flared last year during the Stewardship debate, often hurled by those who demand more hunting access but then scream about socialism when the state buys that access.

Fortunately, that fringe element avoided the DNR Board's listening sessions or swallowed their venom. Cooler heads noted that outdated local ordinances, not Stewardship guidelines, caused the most blatant problems. Others suggested that if firearms aren't practical on some properties, why not archery? It's a safe, quiet, effective option for managing deer.

In other words, most hunters looked around the room, recognized their nonhunting allies and encouraged other forms of recreation. They know hunting, fishing and trapping aren't the only legitimate ways to enjoy the outdoors.

They also realize no one walks directly from an urban sidewalk to a rural deer stand. Only by spending time in a woods, marsh or forest do people move toward a hunting lifestyle.

What better program than Stewardship to build bridges between those two worlds?