Minnesota foraging task force backs research, education and permitting changes; statute and moratorium fall short of supermajority

A Minnesota advisory task force on foraging approved five advisory recommendations and declined to endorse two others after extended debate over tribal consultation, local land‑management authority and ecological safeguards.

The group voted to recommend a proactive, funded study of foraging impacts; development of education and training; adoption of plain‑language guidance; improvements to permitting processes that require permits; and a formal mechanism for the Department of Natural Resources to engage regularly with foraging stakeholders. The task force tested consensus using a "fist‑to‑five" process and then took roll‑call votes. Recommendation outcomes included two that did not meet the task force’s 80% consensus goal: a proposed new statute to codify foraging as a legitimate recreational and cultural activity on DNR lands and a proposed five‑year evaluation period limiting new foraging policy.

Why it matters: The task force’s report, due to the commissioner of natural resources and legislative committees, will inform possible legislation and DNR rulemaking. Several members stressed that the recommendations are advisory — subject to change when a bill is drafted and goes through legislative hearings — but that the report will make legislators aware of the task force’s majority and minority positions.

Key debate points

Tribal consultation: Bradley Harrington of DNR tribal relations urged formal, early government‑to‑government consultation before drafting any statute that could affect tribal rights, saying, "with creating new statute that applies generally, across the state, it's gonna have great impacts on tribal members and tribal nations" and recommending official tribal engagement (committee discussion). Task force leaders responded that tribal invitations and early outreach occurred during the work, and they committed to further one‑on‑one engagement as recommendations move toward legislative drafting.

DNR authority and land managers: Land managers and park district representatives pressed for clearer, geographically specific authority and immediate response tools. Luke Skinner of 3 Rivers Park District said the revised language allowing "local DNR land managers the authority to set additional limits when applicable to specific geographies" needed clearer definition and real‑time management tools, noting concerns about allowing uprooting and whole‑plant harvest across large tracts without stated safeguards.

Implementation and ecological risk: Kelly Bruns of Minnesota DNR said she was "conflicted" about codifying foraging across state parks because of the presence of hundreds of rare, threatened or sensitive resources in state park lands. Ecologists on the panel urged that multi‑year monitoring would be needed to detect ecological impacts, with one member noting that two or three years can be too short to measure change in long‑lived organisms.

Funding and federal constraints: DNR staff raised accounting and federal‑funding concerns tied to permit revenues. The team discussed the need to ensure compliance with federal grant nexus (Pittman‑Robertson/Dingell‑Johnson) when considering permit fee use and to avoid unintentionally creating conflicts with existing federal or state statutes.

Votes at a glance

- Recommendation 1 — Develop a new statute codifying foraging as a legitimate recreational and cultural activity on DNR lands (with definitions and limited permits for protected species): Failed to meet 80% threshold; recorded result 8 yes, 6 no (did not pass the task force’s consensus threshold). - Recommendation 2 — Fund a proactive study and monitoring program to evaluate impacts of foraging: Passed (13 yes, 1 no). - Recommendation 3 — Develop education and training to support best management practices for foraging: Passed (13 yes, 1 no). - Recommendation 4 — Use plain language to make statutes and rules easier to understand: Passed (13 yes, 1 no). - Recommendation 5 — Improve DNR permitting processes for foraging activities that require permits (revised language removing direction on fee collection): Passed (13 yes, 1 no). - Recommendation 6 — Establish a mechanism for regular DNR engagement with foraging stakeholders: Passed (13 yes, 1 no). - Recommendation 7 — Establish a five‑year evaluation period during which limits on new foraging policy would apply (a temporary moratorium on new rule changes): Failed to meet 80% threshold; recorded result 9 yes, 5 no.

What the task force will do next

Staff will prepare a draft legislative report that describes each recommendation, the committee discussion and vote counts; the report is due Feb. 28 and will be reviewed by the task force at its Feb. 10 meeting. The chair noted that recommendations are advisory and that any bill ultimately drafted will be subject to legislative hearings, revision, and further stakeholder input.

Representative quotes from the meeting

"With creating new statute that applies generally, across the state, it's gonna have great impacts on tribal members and tribal nations," Bradley Harrington (DNR tribal relations) said, urging formal government‑to‑government consultation.

"I don't feel that really codifying foraging as a recreational activity... makes sense" on state parks given rare and sensitive resources, Kelly Bruns (Minnesota DNR) said.

"If you agree with that, then I urge you to support it," David Schultz (Minnesota Foraging Alliance) said of the normative proposal to recognize foraging in statute.

Ending

No members of the public offered comment during the meeting’s public‑input slot. The task force will reconvene Feb. 10 to review the draft legislative report; members were invited to provide additional input and to testify during subsequent legislative hearings as the bill is considered.