Core Moose Range designated, Moose Co-Stewardship Committee and moose restoration and research account established, report required, rulemaking authority provided, money transferred, and money appropriated.
HF4246 would create a new state framework for moose management in Minnesota. It designates the 1854 Ceded Territory as the state’s “Core Moose Range” and directs the Department of Natural Resources to manage moose as a priority species there. The bill also requires state agencies to align land, forest, wildlife, and climate policies within that area to support moose restoration and ecosystem health.
The bill establishes a Moose Co-Stewardship Committee made up of state officials, Tribal representatives, federal land managers, conservation groups, and the timber and forest products industry. That committee would develop and maintain a management plan, coordinate habitat restoration and monitoring, review population data and harvest recommendations, and ensure decisions reflect both scientific data and Indigenous knowledge. The bill also amends moose season law so the commissioner may authorize a bull-only moose season only when population, habitat, and committee approval conditions are met, and it requires annual joint review of harvest quotas by Tribal and DNR biologists.
HF4246 would amend Minnesota’s moose season statute and create new law in Chapter 97B governing moose co-stewardship. It would add a new decision-making structure for moose harvest and habitat management, create a dedicated moose restoration and research account in the game and fish fund, and direct revenue from moose licenses, auctions, and lotteries into that account for research, habitat work, monitoring, and committee expenses. The bill also requires an annual report to legislative committees and includes a one-time transfer from the general fund in fiscal year 2027, with rulemaking authority for the commissioner to implement the new framework.
The bill appears generally supportive and collaborative in tone, emphasizing moose recovery, habitat restoration, and shared management. Its structure suggests a strong conservation and Tribal co-management approach, with explicit inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and multiple stakeholder groups. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support beyond the bill’s text and authorship.
The most likely points of contention are the expanded role of Tribal and multi-stakeholder co-stewardship in moose management, the requirement that land and climate policies be aligned within the Core Moose Range, and the new constraints on moose harvest decisions. The inclusion of the timber and forest products industry alongside conservation and Tribal entities suggests the bill anticipates competing interests over habitat, forestry practices, and wildlife management. The one-time general fund transfer and dedication of license-related revenue may also raise fiscal questions, though no specific objections are recorded in the provided materials.