Minnesota task force proposes statute to recognize foraging, recommends five‑year study before major rule changes

The Minnesota Foraging Task Force on Jan. 13 reviewed revised recommendations that would create a new state statute recognizing harvesting and foraging for personal, noncommercial use on DNR‑managed state lands and public waters, while excluding scientific and natural areas and reserving authority for the Department of Natural Resources to identify protected species and restricted areas.

"Statutory language would acknowledge harvesting and foraging for personal noncommercial use as legitimate recreation and cultural activity," staff said during the meeting, reflecting language added to address members’ concerns about legal recognition. Supporters said codification would expand access beyond the narrow list of items currently allowed and formally acknowledge cultural and traditional uses.

Speakers who favor the change argued the statute would shift the default from "restricted except for a few items" to "allowed except where limited for ecological reasons." "We are restricted with everything except for a few things that we can forage," said Senator Pah, urging broader access while emphasizing conservation and education to sustain resources.

Several task force members urged guardrails. DNR staff and resource scientists warned that seeds, roots and whole‑plant harvesting pose risks for restoration programs and native plant genetics. "Roots is always concerning for me," Kelly Brons of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources said, noting challenges for prairie restoration and the difficulty of enforcing uprooting prohibitions in areas with heavy public use.

The group debated whether roots should be allowed without a permit, permitted, or prohibited for some species. Greg (first referenced as a member of the group) proposed inclusive statutory language listing plant parts ("seeds, berries, nuts, flowers, leaves, fungi, included but not limited to") with a caveat "unless prohibited by rule or statute" to avoid excluding commonly harvested items like dandelions.

Acknowledging limited scientific evidence about recreational foraging impacts, several members proposed a deliberate study period. The task force's revised recommendation 10 calls for a five‑year data‑informed evaluation during which the commissioner would not adopt rulemaking that materially reduces the scope of statutory access, except for narrowly tailored, evidence‑based implementation rules or urgent public health, safety, or federal compliance needs.

"Let's codify the right to forage and then study it," said David Mitchell of the Minnesota Foraging Alliance, arguing that the data collected during the evaluation period should inform whether additional limits or permit requirements are needed.

Some members opposed broad statutory permission. Senator Green said the draft effectively gives the DNR authority to limit harvesting by creating lists of prohibited species and worried it could allow significant new restrictions; others sought a moratorium on new rulemaking until more evidence is gathered.

The task force also discussed recommendation 8 (a proposal to explore changes to the noxious weed law with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture) and several members, including technical experts, suggested removing that recommendation because current law already addresses transport of non‑propagating plant parts and adding it risked confusion about agency roles.

Staff promised a revised draft by Jan. 23 and asked members to provide written edits or request 1:1 conversations before the Jan. 27 vote, which will be held in person and online. Members also asked for an additional meeting to continue seeking the 80% consensus the charter prefers.

Next procedural steps: revised recommendations will be circulated Jan. 23; the task force will review and vote Jan. 27. Members may continue to submit edits and staff will incorporate feedback for final consideration.