Cases

Municipal parks across North America are home to dozens of edible and medicinal wild species — from hen-of-the-woods and chicken-of-the-woods on dying oaks, to dandelion, plantain, lamb’s quarters, and even wild berries. A growing number of urban foragers, many from immigrant and Indigenous communities, rely on these spaces for food, medicine, and cultural practice. But park departments increasingly cite overharvesting, ecological damage, and liability concerns as reasons to restrict or prohibit foraging outright. Some cities (like Seattle and Vancouver) have adopted permissive foraging policies with volume limits; others (like NYC and Chicago) issue fines. The question balances ecological stewardship against food sovereignty, cultural access, and the right to practice ancestral knowledge in public land. Should city parks protect foraging as a legitimate public use — with reasonable guardrails — or restrict it to protect park ecosystems and avoid overuse?

Many cities in the Pacific Northwest have abundant native edible plants — salmonberry, thimbleberry, nettle, camas — growing in parks and greenways. However, municipal regulations often treat all foraging as 'removing vegetation,' which conflicts with Indigenous stewardship practices and community food sovereignty. Should Portland designate specific foraging zones where residents can harvest native edibles for personal use, with educational signage about ethical harvesting?

Urban foraging is a growing practice in Portland, but current park rules are unclear and inconsistently enforced. This case asks the community to weigh in on whether Portland Parks & Recreation should adopt a formal policy that permits responsible, culturally-informed foraging of invasive species and abundant native plants — with clear guidelines on harvest limits, species protection, and Indigenous consultation. The outcome would inform a proposal to be presented at the next City Council parks hearing.