Minnesota foraging task force leans toward education, debates permits and limits on agency rulemaking

The Sustainable Foraging Task Force met online to review public listening-session findings, take a pulse on 13 draft recommendations and use a MURAL exercise to surface sticking points as it crafts guidance for foraging on state lands.

Sen. Susan Pah, chair of the task force, opened the meeting by reviewing the panel’s duties and reminding members that “the legislative report [is] due by 02/28/2026” and must include draft statutory or rule language. The group formally adopted minutes from a prior meeting; Luke Skinner moved to adopt and Peter Martynako seconded, and the motion was recorded as passed.

Jennifer, a staff presenter, summarized five online listening sessions that gathered roughly 35 members of the public. “Folks are interested in prioritizing education over enforcement,” she said, and reports from the sessions repeatedly called for incorporating traditional ecological knowledge and respect for tribal rights into any policy changes. The sessions drew mixed views on permitting: some participants supported permits, others opposed them, and many favored low-barrier options or limited permitting tied to data collection or large-group activity.

Tribal representatives and several task force members emphasized access and cultural continuity. Nibi Ogitudakwe of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council said foraging is “a way of life” for many tribal nations and urged recognition of treaty rights and tribal teachings in the task force’s recommendations. Participants raised concerns that enforcement of unclear rules could prevent tribal members from passing on traditional uses of medicines and other resources to younger generations.

DNR staff told the group that the department already has authorities that affect plant collection. Matt Wappler of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources said the agency “already has authority to create a protected-species list under the Minnesota threatened and endangered species law,” and recommended clarifying existing rules rather than creating separate statutes in some areas. Kelly Bridal (DNR) and other agency staff stressed practical constraints: state parks and Scientific and Natural Areas are high-use and include rare species and cultural resources, and a broad permitting program could be difficult to implement.

That mix of legal and operational concerns focused attention on whether the task force should propose new statutes or instead identify specific administrative-rule changes. Several members, including Sen. Steve Green and Luke Skinner, cautioned that if the group wants to limit future agency rulemaking it should do so in statute and be explicit about the types of restrictions and the process the agency must follow.

On permitting, speakers echoed the listening-session pattern: the public generally dislikes a burdensome permit system but some members see a role for narrowly targeted permits (for example, for large-scale or commercial harvests). David Schultz argued for leaving small, casual collecting—“de minimis foraging,” like grabbing a few berries while walking a trail—outside any permitting requirement.

A public witness from Duluth, Kelsey Myrie, urged the task force to make treaty-rights communication and education central to its work, to include up-to-date maps of treaty boundaries, and to consider school-based outreach to lower barriers and build a culture of honorable harvest. “There’s been overharvesting of chaga and birch saplings,” she said, and education and clear maps could help both reduce harm and improve access for tribal members.

Facilitators used a MURAL workspace and a short practice exercise to gather members’ ratings and comments on each draft recommendation; several participants reported technical issues (disabled chat for some users, limited cursor visibility on tablets), and staff offered the chat as an alternate input route. Members were asked to place voting stickers to indicate support or concerns and to add sticky-note wording suggestions for items that lacked consensus.

Chair Pah closed the meeting by thanking participants and staff, noting staff and facilitators will compile the MURAL inputs and emailed suggestions for further review, and reminding the public that the task force will accept written comments through Dec. 31. She said the next meeting will be in early January; the transcript records both “January 6” and “January 16,” so the exact date is not specified in the record.