Traditional foragers tell Minnesota task force foraging is culturally important, usually sustainable and needs clearer rules

Members of Minnesota’s Sustainable Foraging Task Force opened the session by approving prior meeting minutes, then heard a panel of traditional foragers who argued for recognizing foraging as culturally important, broadly sustainable and in need of clearer rules.

The task force chair reminded members that the panel’s work fits the group’s charge to "gather and review information on the impacts of foraging" and to submit a written report to the commissioner of natural resources and legislative committee chairs and ranking members. The meeting began with a vote that approved the previous meeting minutes with a reported tally of 9 yes and 1 abstain.

Panelists said foraging contributes to conservation, community and cultural continuity. "I would like to venture something a little controversial here that we live in a profoundly anti foraging society today," Samuel Thayer said, arguing U.S. norms have historically privileged farming over gathering and sometimes stigmatize people who gather wild food. Thayer added that, in many cases, foragers help control invasive species and provide detailed ecological knowledge that agencies lack.

Indigenous panelist Luke Black Elk described barriers to accessing traditional foods and medicines, saying that "it's been illegal as an indigenous person for me to get my food and my medicine from the place where it has always been." He urged regulators to avoid policies that in effect ban longstanding cultural practices and to ensure access for Indigenous communities.

Several speakers emphasized stewardship and education as central benefits. Tim Clemens of Ironwood Foraging described teaching thousands of people plant and mushroom ecology and said that "this is a very positive" activity that often leads participants to volunteer on behalf of parks and native plantings. Maria Westerly noted archaeological and ecological evidence showing Indigenous land‑management practices such as controlled burning and cited studies suggesting some plants benefit from careful human harvesting.

Task force members probed the panel on definitions. David Schultz asked panelists to define "sustainable foraging" and "personal use." Panelists generally described sustainable foraging as harvesting that does not produce "a notable negative impact on that resource," and said "personal use" often means not selling what is gathered. Several panelists cautioned that a single numeric limit (for example, a strict per‑person volume) may not capture cultural differences, household needs, gift economies or the difference between casual hobby gathering and commercial harvests such as wild rice or ginseng, which already have licensing rules.

Bradley Harrington, director of tribal relations at the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, highlighted that foraging touches mental, spiritual and physical well‑being and asked panelists about community impacts if people lost access to wild resources. Panelists responded that losing access would change cultural practices and diminish intergenerational knowledge transfer.

Panelists also urged clearer signage and park guidance. Thayer pointed to apparent inconsistencies between park messaging (‘‘you’re allowed to collect mushrooms and fruits’’) and other materials that are ambiguous about what is permitted. Several attendees said clarity would help compliance and reduce confrontations between stewards and visitors.

The task force did not adopt new rules at the meeting. Members thanked the panel and continued the discussion about operating agreements and the task force’s scope; the task force remains charged with producing a report to the commissioner of natural resources and relevant legislative committees as required by its charter.