Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Foraging Permits And Definitions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Minnesota foraging task force debates whether to define ‘personal use’ or bar commercial harvest
Summary
The Minnesota Sustainable Foraging Task Force spent its meeting reviewing DNR background material and listening-session takeaways, and then debated whether to rely on a broad “personal use” standard, adopt an “honorable harvest” approach for cultural uses, or explicitly prohibit commercial foraging while using no‑cost permits and local discretion to collect data.
The Minnesota Sustainable Foraging Task Force met to review background materials and press toward draft recommendations on permitting, enforcement and definitions for foraging on state lands.
Members began by approving previous meeting minutes by roll call, 12‑0, then reviewed packets that included Washington County practices and Wisconsin DNR guidance. Nick Nero, the task force research analyst, pointed members to those documents and to a DNR memo that responded to questions from listening sessions.
Why it matters: the task force must deliver a written report with specific, actionable recommendations by Feb. 28, 2026, and its decisions could change which plants and activities are allowed on state forest, wildlife management areas and state parks.
DNR data and enforcement: John Waters, government relations unit supervisor for the Department of Natural Resources, told the group that the citation counts in the packet come from an incident/complaint system and are not categorized at scale as “foraging” without a time‑intensive manual review. "Those citations and warnings aren't specific to foraging at this time," Waters said, adding conservation officers typically start with education before issuing citations and that clear, egregious commercial examples (for instance, whole ramps removed from a WMA for sale) do exist but are rare.
Defining use and permits: Much of the meeting focused on whether to define "personal use" (commonly described in the discussion as a no‑profit standard) or to forbid commercial foraging outright and, separately, how to treat culturally important or traditional harvests. Several members urged the committee to preserve traditional ecological knowledge and an "honorable harvest" ethic for cultural uses. Dale Gentry of Audubon said he favored including honorable‑harvest principles; Peter Marniacco of the Minnesota Mycological Society warned that everyday harvesting behaviors and scales are often poorly understood by non‑foragers.
Permits and website confusion: The group heard that most DNR foraging permits are issued for personal use; commercial sale is allowed only for products specifically authorized under separate commercial permits (Waters cited ginseng and wild rice as statutory examples). Members said DNR website language lumps multiple items under one permit category and thereby creates confusion; John Waters agreed the site can be misleading and that the explicit "sale" provision on the website refers mainly to dead fuel wood rather than to forage products. Waters cited a $25 permit fee for certain forestry permits.
Evidence, education and local discretion: Members repeatedly said there is limited empirical data on impacts from small‑scale foraging, and several urged a data collection pilot rather than broad new prohibitions. Suggestions included issuing a no‑cost permit to gather information and using local area supervisors’ discretion to limit "large amounts" where necessary. Senator Steve Green and others urged care in regulating activities that many people consider a way of life, warning against creating burdensome permit requirements that the public will not use.
Sensitive species and approach options: Discussions sketched several policy approaches: (1) keep a broad "personal use" rule defined chiefly by no profit motive and rely on targeted restrictions for sensitive species (ramps, fiddleheads, Solomon's seal); (2) adopt an "allow all except" list that explicitly names species and activities that remain prohibited; (3) define commercial foraging by existing business‑registration or commercial‑activity thresholds and prohibit commercial harvests while leaving noncommercial foraging broadly permitted; or (4) combine a culturally sensitive "honorable harvest" standard with clearer education and enforcement. Angela Gupta (University of Minnesota Extension) proposed allowing broad personal/cultural harvest but singling out a short list of species for protection and revisiting the policy in five years.
Next steps: The chair asked staff to draft candidate language for the group to review at the next meeting (Dec. 16). Members were asked to bring concrete wording on permits and personal‑use definitions, and staff were asked to clarify which species and land types currently require permits. The DNR tip line (1‑800‑POACHERS) was noted as an existing reporting avenue for suspected overharvest.
The task force did not adopt any statutory changes at the meeting; it is expected to refine draft recommendations and possible statutory language in upcoming sessions ahead of the February 2026 report.
