LIGHTLY EDITED FILE

   Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Task Force Meeting #2

                     May 18th, 2020

     Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

                         Remote

               1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. (CDT)

                      *  *  *  *  *

                       DISCLAIMER

 This text is being provided in a lightly edited draft

 format and is the work product of the CART captioner.

  Any reproduction, publication, or other use of this

  CART file without the express written consent of the

    captioner is strictly prohibited.  Communication

   Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in

  order to facilitate communication accessibility, and

   this lightly edited CART file may not be a totally

  verbatim record of the proceedings, nor should it be

  considered in any way as a certified document.  Due

   to the live nature of the event, some names and/or

  terms may be misspelled. This text may also contain

    phonetic attempts at sounds and words that were

 spoken, and environmental sounds that occurred during

                       the event.

                      *  *  *  *  *

      CART PROVIDED BY Kristi L. Arntzen, RPR, CRC

   PARADIGM REPORTING & CAPTIONING, a Veritext Company

    612.339.0545 -- captioning-paradigm@veritext.com

>> Gratia Joice: All right.

Well, welcome, everybody.

It's 1:00.

Just give me one second to confirm that I have my

chairs here.

Yep.

Looks like both Randolph and John are here.

And that most task force members are here.

Let me just do a quick count.

[ chiming ]

[ chiming ]

>> Gratia Joice: All right.

Well, we're going to go ahead and get started.

And just start kind of going through some of the intro

stuff while the last few members hopefully are able to

connect.

I'm glad we're starting a bit more on time than we did

last time.

So thank you, everybody, for being here.

I'll connect my video.

For this.

Welcome, everybody to the second meeting of the

Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Task Force.

As a refresher, my name's Gratia Joice and I'm a

planner in D.N.R. Parks and --

[ audio cut out ]

Task force, along with Andrew Korsberg, who you'll hear

a bit from later today.

To kick off the meeting today, I'm going to pass it

right over to our chairs to give us some opening

remarks before we dive into the agenda.

So with that, John and Randolph.

>> John Edman: Sure, I'll start, because I've got

very few remarks that I care to say.

Mostly I just wanted to thank everybody for being here

and participating in our second Outdoor Recreation Task

Force meeting.

We -- we really appreciate your being a part of this.

Being a part of the first meeting.

And we really appreciate a lot of the feedback that we

received from all of you after that meeting.

After that first meeting, we looked at a lot of our

thoughts and comments, and it was a great chance for us

to kind of get virtually acquainted, get to know each

other a little bit.

But we did want to make a few changes based on some of

your feedback.

And one of the changes too that we wanted to make is we

want to make these meetings as efficient as they can be

for your time.

And we kind of realized that some of the last meeting,

which was three hours, it's a lot of time to commit for

several meetings, so we're going to try to reduce this

meeting down to at least two hours and maybe that going

forward.

And we also want more participation.

We're also going to have to reduce the overall number

of meetings.

I think we're -- I think I heard we're going to seven

meetings versus the ten which was originally slotted

for this -- this effort.

So, again, bottom line is we heard from you.

We really value your time and your input.

We want to make this as efficient as possible.

Today's meeting, I think some of the things we're going

to talk about are the timeline.

We're going to talk about the -- sort of the things

that we're going to focus on.

I think the next meeting we're going to do some

additional breakouts, and then we want to plan our next

meeting for in June.

A few closing comments at the end, but just wanted to

leave it at that and say thanks, again, everybody, for

being a part of this call today and look forward to the

discussion today and for the rest of the several

meetings to come.

So with that, I'll turn it over to you, Andrew.

Or to Randolph, sorry.

[ Laughter ]

>> No worries.

Thanks, John.

My name's Randolph.

I'm special assistant to the D.N.R.

I just want to be quick as well.

I just want to say welcome and thanks again for

everyone in this group, volunteering your time during

this unprecedented time that we're in right now.

To do this really important work of making Minnesota

the best state in the nation for outdoor recreation

opportunity.

I saw -- I had an opportunity as well to read through

all of the homework assignments this weekend, and one

comment that kind of stuck out to me, that I wanted to

highlight, was, it was a quote that said, we need to

own the fact that Minnesota can finish in first place.

I think that's an important quote.

I think Minnesota -- in Minnesota, we have the

resources, the natural resources.

We have the people and we have the passion.

I've lived in a number of states that consider

themselves outdoor recreation powerhouses, whether it's

Colorado or Vermont or California.

I've never lived in a state that is as passionate about

the outdoors as Minnesota.

What we do need, though, we may need some additional

tools that other states might already have to increase

our access, our collaboration, our promotion, these are

all themes that we heard in the homework assignment.

So I just wanted to say thanks again for everyone.

We're really looking forward to this conversation and

I'll turn it back to Gratia and Andrew.

>> Gratia Joice: Thank you, Randolph and John, for

those words.

I want to go over a little bit of housekeeping.

Before we get going.

We do have live captioning available again today.

You can use -- it should be displayed in the multimedia

viewer on your screen, or else you can visit the

hyperlink listed on the screen here to access those

live captions.

A couple notes for task force members, again, if you

have technical difficulties throughout the meeting,

please reach out directly to Alicia Mathews via the

chat.

She is our I.T. support and perhaps can help you

trouble-shoot.

I know some of the members are still having issues

access their audio, but hopefully we found some good

workarounds for that.

You also can use the chat function to raise your hand

and ask questions or comment during discussions.

When you do this, please direct your messages to all

panelists so that everybody can kind of see the

questions and the comments as they did come in.

A want to take a moment to recognize that virtual

meetings, it can be difficult to have kind of a fluid

natural conversation.

But our goal is that everybody feels like they have a

chance to say their piece and feel heard.

So while it may not feel as natural and as easy as it

can, and, you know, when we're all sitting in the same

room, you know, our goal is to really still have a good

dialogue and make sure people are able to share their

ideas with one another.

[ audio cut out ]

Everybody a chance to continue to get to know one

another.

And when you are not talking, please mute your mic.

A note to our public participants today.

We do have a dedicated Q&A portion of the agenda.

And if you do have comments or questions that you would

like to put forth for that time, please use the WebEx

Q&A function to submit those, and we will do our best

to go through as many as we towards the end of the

meeting.

With that, we'll kind of go over what we'll be

discussing today.

We have three main meeting objectives.

The first is to understand the timeline for coming up

with recommendations by December 2020.

The next is to share the areas of interest you all

identified in your homework assignment.

And then lastly, it's to finalize the -- the focus

areas that the task force will focus on moving forward.

So ear's our agenda.

We'll do a brief charter and group norms update for the

group.

Then I'll go over the timeline.

Then we'll spend a good portion of today's meeting

doing that theme exploration, diving into the results

from the homework assignment.

And giving you all an opportunity to talk about those

results.

And then we'll hopefully get down to a narrowed --

narrowed-down list of focus areas for the task force.

Then I'll spend some time talking about next steps and

what we'll be -- what we'll all be working on going

forward.

We'll take some public comments and questions, and then

I'll pass it to the chairs to give us some closing

remarks.

So that is our plan for today.

Who's going to provide us with a brief update on the

charter and the group norms.

>> Thanks, Gratia.

Greetings, everyone.

My name is Andrew Korsberg.

To help support the task force.

Gratia emailed everyone the summary of the group norms

survey responses.

We didn't get any new comments on the charter, so

anything specific to add to that, other than just to

take a look at that as we go through this prosecutes.

Process.

As far as the group norms comments, the key areas worth

mentioning are around the decision process.

Communication, and then conflict of interest.

And I don't think we need to spend a tremendous amount

of time here because we want to get into the meat of

the -- of the conversations here, but just to quickly

go over it, sort of the key points in the decision

process that you guys brought up was around ensuring

that we have group discussion and kind of consensus as

we go.

The potential for subcommittees or work teams which

we'll discuss a little bit more later as we dive into

the meeting.

And then also sort of as we approach more normal

decision making or formal recommendations to have some

sort of voting recognition for that.

As far as the key points around communication,

basically, we want to sort of work together with any

media relations.

And then we on the staff side will work to keep the

public-facing website up to date with all the relevant

information for everyone.

And then the last area was with comments around the

conflict of interest.

So I was thinking, you know, since this group is

primarily working on recommendations and not

necessarily official decisions, we shouldn't have any

serious situations for potential conflicts of interest.

But we should always be mindful of this, so going

forward at least, if anyone has a conflict, that they

should disclose, either privately with the co-chairs or

with staff or with the whole group as appropriate.

So with that, does anyone have any questions about

these group norms?

Or comments?

You know, also, I'll just add here, if anyone would

like to discuss this more, we can, otherwise you can

talk to Gratia and me.

We can dive into it.

So I guess to let anyone have a question or not?

And we can be sort of fluid as we go forward with this

too.

So if we want to revisit this down the line, we can

totally do that too.

So -- with that, I'll pass to Gratia.

I'm assuming everyone heard me.

That I wasn't muted this whole time.

>> Gratia Joice: I heard you.

I know, I had that worry earlier about myself.

>> Andrew Korsberg:  Thank you, Gratia.

>> Gratia Joice: Thank you, Andrew.

So next we're going to talk a little bit about the task

force timeline.

I recognize that this was something that came up in the

last meeting.

People were kind of wondering, well, how are we going

to get, you know, from today to December and have those

recommendations finalized?

So I wanted to provide you with a little bit of framing

to understand the process of how we'll do that.

So -- and before that, I really wanted to say thank you

to everyone who filled out the feedback form from the

first meeting.

Your feedback was really helpful, and as everyone is

keenly aware, the current state of our world and the

amount of unknowns and ever-change angry landscape is

causing a lot of uncertainty -- quite honestly, we're

not really sure when we'll be able to or if we'll be

able to meet face to face for a while.

And so that's really causing us to pause and rethink

and assess how we can most effectively and efficiently

accomplish the work laid out in the charter to develop

recommendations for the D.N.R. and Explore Minnesota by

December.

And as John kind of alluded to, this is causing us to

change a little bit of the structure for how we'll do

that.

So I wanted to go through that real quick with you all.

So we've broken the task force timeline into four

phases.

The first phase, which we're still in now, is -- is all

about introductions, background information, and

defining our focus areas going forward.

After today, once we've defined our focus areas, we

will move into phase two of this process where we will

be looking at the strengths and opportunities in

Minnesota based on task force identified areas of

interest.

As commissioner Strommen emphasized in the first

meeting last month, we really want the recommendations

that come out of this effort to be tailored to

Minnesota's unique assets and needs as a state.

And so to accomplish this work efficiently, and to deal

with the fact that most of our meetings will be remote,

and it's painful to sit on day-long remote meetings, we

will be breaking up into smaller work groups that will

focus on a specific topic as chosen by the task force.

These groups will work to complete SWOT analyses, which

I'll go into more detail later, on their given topic or

focus area.

Then the work groups will all come back together to --

[ audio cut out ]

And feedback.

And then we'll begin to synthesize ideas together.

>> Andrew:  Hey, Gratia.

Could you go back just a little bit.

There was a little moment there where you cut out?

>> Gratia Joice: Okay, what was the last thing you

heard?

>> I can't remember precisely.

Just 30 seconds or something.

>> Gratia Joice: Okay, sounds good.

So to accomplish this work of phase two, we're going to

be breaking up into smaller work groups based on the

focus areas that you all decide on.

And I'm going to go into the specifics of this later,

but these work groups will be completing SWOT analyses

for these different focus areas, and then coming back

to the larger task force to get feedback, kind of fill

in the blanks, and hopefully this will start painting a

picture of what some of the potential recommendations

for Minnesota could be.

After we've taken a good look at Minnesota to better

understand our needs as a unique state, we will then

look to how other states are tackling this type of

work.

And this will take place in phase three, which will

likely begin at the end of summer and early fall.

And then after that, once we understand Minnesota's

needs and have learned some best practices from our

peers, we will finalize our recommendations for the

D.N.R. and Explore Minnesota.

You will learn a lot more about the specifics of each

phase as we approach that phase.

But in the meantime, I'd be happy to answer any

questions that anyone has.

And like I said, for phase two, which we are about to

kick off, you know, after today, I will be getting kind

of into the meat of those details later in this

meeting.

SWOT stands for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,

and threats.

You can also do a SWOC analysis where the C stands for

challenges or concerns.

And we'll be talking more about what that looks like a

little bit later today.

But thanks for clarifying that, Andrew.

Are there any questions that I can answer?

Okay.

Can people hear me?

I just want to make sure.

>> Yep, I can hear you.

>> Yep, I can hear you as well.

>> Gratia Joice: Thank you, thank you.

All right.

Well, since there are no questions now, we can move on.

So I'm going to pass it back to Andrew to kind of drive

into the results of the homework assignment.

>> Thanks, Gratia.

Yeah, so thanks, everyone, for filling out the survey

and providing a lot of really -- really neat

information.

As Randolph mentioned, there was tons of stuff in those

comments and the spreadsheet that Gratia sent out.

And one of our main goals in today is to help define,

you know, these areas of focus that will drive the work

of the task force.

And so once we've decided these areas, then the sort of

overall goal is to break into these smaller work groups

and then do kind of a SWOC analysis, SWOT analysis that

Gratia mentioned to identify in each of those topic

areas what are the strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities, and then concerns that -- in the

Minnesota situation.

And then from there, I know it's been brought up

before, you know, there are these -- these examples of

what other states are doing, and so with the vision is

to -- to look at what Minnesota's doing and what

opportunities Minnesota has, and then from there, sort

of as a Minnesota model, and then from there, once we

have that more detailed understanding, to compare that

then to the other states.

So Gratia and I, you know, took a look at all of your

answers to the survey.

And took a first stab at trying to organize or lump

these into categories.

Ideally, like we all could have been in one giant room

together and done a really fun kind of affinity diagram

or exercise, but since we're remote, her and I, we did

the best we could to try to classify them.

And while we also recognize that a lot of the comments

could have fallen under multiple categories.

So as you can see on the screen, the main categories we

initially came up with were ones around access,

economic development, collaboration, conservation,

promotion, and then sort an "Other" category for a few

of those that might not have quite fit into those other

ones.

As I mentioned, Gratia had emailed out the

comprehensive list of all these comments, so that'll be

a great resource.

You'll notice in that document, there are two columns.

You don't necessarily need to pull it up now if you

don't want to, but there are two columns.

One is the sort of primary one, and then one is

secondary.

As I mentioned, a lot of the ideas and comments could

have fallen in under more than one category, so weed

add secondary option in there to spur conversation or

thinking about it.

And so as we go on today especially, Gratia's going to

go through each one of these and we want your guidance

and input and everything in helping to refine these

categories by both helping to clarify, you know, the

names as well as the content.

Also, one thing to note, some of the categories might

have even a sub-focus area within the category, because

they're pretty broad categories in themselves.

So, for example, access, we sort of found there were

two types of access sub-groupings, one with a focus on

expanded access for diversity and inclusion, and then

another for access generally to, like, more

recreational opportunities.

And so that's an example of one that we initially

looked at.

It's also worth noting that these general categories

have a lot of overlap or similarity to the groupings in

the purpose and values from the charter.

For example, in the purpose of the charter, it says

that the goal of the -- of this task force is to -- is

to figure out how to bring measured growth, increase

inequitable access, and a higher quality of outdoor

recreational opportunities to Minnesotans and visitors.

And so there's a clear, you know, these things are

cross-correlated of course, but so that's also worth

noting.

Also under the values, additionally, quality of life,

environmental stewardship, and economic development

were identified in the charter too.

So it's all kind of interconnected.

So as we go forward from this, Gratia will walk us

through each of these areas and kind of highlight some

of the key sort of summary comments that we received

that you guys submitted from those.

And then, you know, as we do that, one of the key

questions for you guys overall is to think are these

the right areas for the task force to focus?

Are these the right groupings?

Is the wording of the category, does that make sense?

Have a better wording, better way to understand this.

Is there a better way to describe these ideas?

And then also, you know, is this the right grouping.

You know, should some of these be combined together or

should some of them be split apart.

We really look to you guys as the task force to help

guide that.

So with that, I'll pass it to Gratia, unless there's

sort of questions overall before we start going in.

>> Andrew?

>> Yes.

>> Gratia Joice: All right, before I move on, I

think there are a couple task force members who maybe

don't have access to their microphones.

If that is the case -- if you are one of the task force

members that can't access your mic, please send a chat

to the host and the presenter in the WebEx chat to let

us know.

And then if you have any comments or things to

contribute, we'll either try and manually unmute you or

else if we can't do that, we can read any thoughts or

ideas you have related to that.

So just let us know if you're having trouble accessing

your microphone.

So with that, let's dive into some of the things that

we heard in the homework assignment.

So Andrew gave a lot of really good background to our

process.

And I just wanted to throw up some of the ideas that we

categorized in the different categories on the screen.

Some of these have been lumped together if --

[ audio cut out ]

This first category is access, and as Andrew mentioned,

there were kind of two distinct categories of access.

One was more related to equitable and inclusive access.

And so these were some of the areas of interest that

task force members had that fell within to that

category as Andrew and I saw.

So these things include access to outdoor recreation

opportunities for underserved communities.

Opportunities for Minnesotans with fewer financial

resources and for Minnesotans with disabilities.

Better access to the health and quality of life

benefits of outdoor recreation.

More black, indigenous, and people of color staffing

and programming.

And more funding for black, indigenous, people of

color, and underrepresented communities.

Growing exposure to and the utilization of the outdoors

with a stewardship acknowledgement.

And access to gear and equipment.

And just before I get too far, I'm going to run through

all the different categories kind of what fell within

each one, and then we'll go back up to the top and can

dive in.

But I wanted to give you kind of the whole swath of

everybody's ideas before we dive in specifically to

each category.

So the next category was access related to increasing

opportunities.

And some of the ideas that fell within this category

were increasing opportunities in areas of the state

that are lacking in opportunities and economic

development.

Creating quality opportunities.

Creating opportunities that get more residents involved

in Minnesota outdoors.

[ audio cut out ]

Modernization.

Increasing silent sport opportunities across ages and

socioeconomic groups.

Completion of the Gitchi Gumi trail and/or creating

other trail system linkages.

And funding for the sector.

Another category that Andrew and I saw appear in

everybody's answers was this idea of collaboration.

Some of the ideas that emerged related to this were how

user groups can better connect with each other and

solve problems.

Best practices in the era of coronavirus.

How Minnesota can help foster strong, sustainable,

local communities.

How to connect outdoor recreation and K-12 education.

Connecting stakeholders together.

Coordinating across state agencies.

Public-private partnerships and the creation of an

Office of Outdoor Recreation.

Then one category that emerged was economic

development.

There's only one comment listed here, but as you may

have already seen already, there are some ideas that

surfaced in other categories that are definitely tied

to economic development.

We just decided to categorize those in different ways

for their primary category.

But this idea is related to outdoor recreation planning

and investment in outdoor recreation infrastructure.

Promotion.

Is another category that we saw emerge.

This included emphasizing that --

Brought up at the beginning of the meeting.

Marketing, outreach and partnerships with black,

indigenous, people of color, and other underrepresented

communities.

Broadening the definition -- the definition and

increasing the breadth of outdoor recreation

opportunities in Minnesota.

Sharing knowledge and opportunities with our youth.

Collecting and promoting indigenous ways of life and

how those are connected to the outdoors.

Promoting the quality of life benefits of outdoor

recreation.

Building a better outdoor industry in Minnesota.

And creating a unified strategy to promote outdoor

recreation across interest areas.

Oops.

There were more ideas related to promotion.

Including identifying effective ways to market and

promote in Minnesota.

Promoting outdoor recreation opportunities in our

schools and outside of the metro area.

Giving groups that allow people to engage with the

outdoors more visibility and increasing the awareness

of the impact of outdoor recreation on the economy and

workforce to foster and support the growth of the

industry throughout Minnesota.

Conservation emerged, and again, this is similar to

economic development.

While there were some other ideas that were tied to

conservation, we categorized those primarily in

different ways.

But this idea relates to identifying creative ways to

invest in conservation of wild places in the future.

And then lastly, we had this "Other" category, with

this idea --

[ audio cut out ]

Newly advised policy makers on the relevant issues and

opportunities requested to outdoor recreation.

So that's kind of a snapshot.

Of the results of the homework assignment.

I really encourage you, if you don't have it pulled up,

or haven't had a chance to take a good look at it, that

spreadsheet I sent out has so much good ideas and

information that I think it will be a really valuable

resource moving forward as we break up into these

smaller work groups.

And it was really exciting to go through and see all

the great ideas you all had.

So now that you've gotten to see how Andrew and I kind

of sliced the pie, so to speak, we wanted to discussion

each category in a bit more depth to decide if this

should be a focus area for the task force that those

work -- that a work group will really dive into by

doing those SWOT analyses.

So as Andrew mentioned, things we want your feedback on

are, is this the right name for the category?

Should it be more specific and refined?

Do all of the -- these ideas fit into this category?

How do these ideas interact with other ideas you saw

maybe listed in different categories?

Is there -- and is there anything missing?

So with that, we'll open it up to you all to chime in

and give your reaction to this information.

And, yeah, so feel free to start talking, and remember,

if you can use that chat function to get in line too,

if people start -- if there's something you want to

respond to.

>> Gratia, this is Greg Lais.

Can you hear me?

>> Mark Norquist: Yes, I can.

>> Greg Lais: On the access, equitable and

inclusivity piece, I didn't see much stated in there

about people with disabilities.

I might have missed it, but I didn't see anything, but

I assume that everybody's in agreement that, you know,

the outdoor recreation facilities in Minnesota should

meet all A.D.A. standards and be as accessible as

possible for people with disabilities.

I'll just be quiet after that.

Thank you.

>> Gratia Joice: Thank you, Greg.

>> This is Hansi speaking.

I guess if you're just looking for support on whether

or not the category is one that we should be working

in, I would say, you know, for sure.

[ Laughter ]

Definitely a place that I have the task force should be

looking at and working in.

I can't speak to all the bullet points on the equitable

and inclusive list, but I certainly support all of

them.

>> Gratia Joice: Thanks, Hansi.

And I guess another question to consider is, you know,

when we do break up into work groups, do we want to

talk about access as kind of the whole swath of both,

you know, related to more opportunities and equitable

or would you rather have kind of distinct access

categories as work groups?

So that's something to consider.

>> Had a comment that said, access makes sense as a

category and the bullets make sense.

Thank you, Sarah.

>> Hi, Gratia, this is Joe Henry.

Can you hear me okay?

>> Gratia Joice: Yes, Joe, hi.

>> Joe Henry: Once we have an opportunity to see,

you know, first off what other states are doing well,

and, you know, maybe that SWOT analysis, there might be

some other bullet points that pop for access, and, you

know, access obviously is in a lot of different areas,

and, you know, one of the -- I don't know if we --

again, I think that those exercises will bring out what

access we might want to take a look at.

You know, one of them that I think about is fishing

opportunity accesses, public fishing platforms or boat

ramp accesses to lakes.

You know, we have Parks and Trails are.

What are accesses we maybe don't have listed?

What should we have access to that maybe we didn't

think of?

And again, I think that'll come out as we do that

exercise.

>> Gratia Joice: Thanks, Joe.

>> Gratia, this is J.R. from Polaris.

I think I would -- as I'm reading through these

bullets, I think one of the -- one of the things that

really stands out for me is, you know, there also needs

to be a means.

A means to accessing these opportunities, whether it's

camps, workshops.

You know, getting to the boat accesses and things like

that where you -- I think we all benefit when we look

at access as an opportunity for, let's say, people from

different regions of Minnesota to access other regions

of Minnesota to enjoy different, you know, a much more

diverse cadre of outdoor recreational opportunities.

So, for instance, if it's, you know, black, indigenous,

people of color, finding opportunities to -- even to

find transportation to getting to, you know, the

arrowhead region of Minnesota, to participate in

canoeing, fishing, whatever their recreational pursuit

is.

And then likewise, focusing on folks who may be from

Greater Minnesota who may want to come to the Twin

Cities metro area and identify, you know, opportunities

to use bike trails, you know, even things like simple

things that they may have never thought of, like going

to Minnehaha Falls, and enjoying those more urban and

suburban outdoor recreational settings to enjoy all of

Minnesota.

Kind of looking at this from a more holistic

perspective and say, I think one of the things as we

think about access and whether it is equitable and

inclusive, we also need to think about how do we -- not

only who the population is that we're talking about,

but once we have that population identified, how do we

give them the means by which to actually achieve that

access?

If that make senses.

If that makes sense.

>> Gratia Joice: Yeah, thank you for that comment.

It looks like Matt wants to -- and unfortunately, Matt,

I am not able to unmute you.

Let's see if Madison, our host is able to unmute you?

>> Can you hear me okay?

>> Gratia Joice: Yes.

>> Matt Gruhn: Oh, great.

All right, so this is Matt over at the Marine Retailers

Association.

I think this is probably the biggest most important

category, just providing greater access.

I'm in agreement with the bullets and with what Greg

noted on the A.D.A. language as well.

I think that's going to be important.

You asked about the two different work groups.

I would suggest that to begin with, that maybe we leave

access as one group.

And then if -- because I think we need to think about

access for everybody.

In general as we approach this.

But if it gets to be too big of a challenge for that

group, then maybe we can split it out into two groups

later on.

That's my thoughts.

>> Gratia Joice: Thanks, Matt.

Did anybody have any -- oh, go ahead.

>> This is Mark.

Can you hear me?

>> Mark Norquist: Yes, Mark.

>> Mark Norquist: Great.

I'll just follow on what Matt just said.

I think one group is appropriate.

And I do think this -- and I think some of the comments

are getting at this, I think this issue and focus area

will work very well in terms of getting down the road

of how do these issues get addressed when it comes to

looking at the access issue.

I think we'll dove-tail well with promotion and

markets, because I do think that -- marketing, because

I do think that awareness is an important element

within access, where in some cases, there might be --

there might be, you know, physical barriers to certain

groups participating, let's say, but I think there's --

there's just as much an issue of maybe lack of

awareness on the opportunities that already exist.

So just a comment around that.

And again, I think it should be one group to start.

>> This is Asha with -- outdoors.

Great, I just want to say, so my -- one of my bullet

points is the top one.

And just, you know, what I've heard from folks in

community was the way that they were approaching

accessibility was very -- very different, like, so

right, you know, the general things like the actual

built-out things, right?

Like boat launches or paved trails, those kind of

things, but also really specific.

Whether it was, you know, being able to use the rest

room, having A.S.E., so autism and sensory disorder

friendly programming.

People were also talking about access being like a

financial barrier, right?

And a ton of folks wrote about -- about programming and

staffing and having it be where they actually felt

included or welcomed because the staff or the programs,

like, looked like them, right?

So I'm, like, I'm okay with it being one thing, like,

one category.

I also just think that within that category, there's

some really specific things.

That we can, you know, really specific categories

within categories.

>> Gratia Joice: Yep, for sure.

Thank you.

All right, are there any other thoughts?

I can move it to this more opportunities, access,

slide, if that -- if anybody sees anything here they

want to react to.

If not, I'll give it a few more seconds, then we can

move on to the next category.

Great.

So it seems like access is a big area of interest.

For the task force.

And that will start off with one access group.

And -- but recognizing that there are some specific sub

types of access that will need to be addressed within

that broader access group.

So let's move on to collaboration.

So, again, just looking for member reactions to this

information, tying any ideas together, either within

this -- its own category, or that you saw in other

places.

You know, like Mark just tied access and promotion

together, things like that.

>> Gratia, this is Greg again.

Greg Lais.

I love this part, collaboration, and I think this is

really probably, you know, the secret sauce to what we

could -- how we could make outdoor recreation, you

know, whatever, accessible, equitable, and more broadly

promoted throughout the state.

And I also think this is a challenge here is how do we

really, you know, how do we really do this?

And is this committee, you know, can we -- what can we

recommend to promote it, promote collaboration?

So -- yeah, I do think it's probably one of the most

important parts of this entire task force.

Thank you.

>> This is Mark Norquist.

Yeah, I agree with Greg.

I think this is probably one of the primary reasons I

raised my hand to be part of the task force to look at

this issue.

However, I also believe this is going to be one of the

more challenging ones, because I think we -- within the

outdoor recreation community, it is functioned as such

a fragmented community for a long time, and so rather

than collaborating, I think groups have competed, and

somebody made a reference, I believe, and comment on

the survey about the land grab of everybody for

themselves, and you got to get there first.

And I think that's -- that's existed for a long time.

So I think it will be challenging, but I think it's

just as important as it is challenging.

>> Yeah, this is Steve.

I also think that this is super important in terms of

the collaboration -- our success in collaborating will

go a long ways in our ability to create success in all

the categories that are listed there.

And so that's -- I think that's what the bullet points

that people put down there are super important and

super focused on what we can do throughout in all the

categories.

>> Hi, this is Katy with Winnebago.

I was just going to say that collaboration, I agree, is

a really important area.

As well as access.

I guess I would say that access depending on how we

define it, should be a lens through which we look at

each of the categories.

So I agree that it should be a category in and of

itself.

And then it will be something that I would assume each

of the work groups will also kind of use as a lens

through -- for, you know, for all of the discussions.

But from a collaboration standpoint, I'm really excited

about the potential and opportunities for this task

force to be able to, yes, definitely be aware of the

challenges that have existed, but really kind of forge

forward in creating a sustainable infrastructure to

really foster that ongoing collaboration.

Thanks.

>> This is Molly from the University of Minnesota.

Can you guys hear me?

>> Gratia Joice: Yes.

>> Mollika Sajady: Okay.

I also just want to emphasize that this collaboration

piece could be a really important asset when it comes

to funding as well.

So I'm specifically thinking about partnerships, the

bullet point about Minnesota K-12 students, so using

some of the existing maybe field trips outdoors, things

like that, to get access to kids outside.

Using some of the maybe school funds that are already

in place, and then also specifically with some of the

families that I work with, in the disability sector,

there's waivers that they have access to, to pay for

certain programming and things like that.

So trying to connect those with outdoor opportunities

as well could be a nice way to kind of connect

different state agencies and get funding for more

opportunities to increase access, which kind of goes

back to the other bullet point as well.

>> Gratia Joice: Thanks, Molly.

>> Sore eye is a, I was going to jump in.

This is Hansi.

So I would agree with everything that was said ahead of

time and just also point out that looking at the idea

of the creation of an Office of Outdoor Recreation and

understanding that that could be a focal point, I mean,

collaboration with facilitation can kind of the key

thing which we're doing now so really understanding

that we have an opportunity to facilitate that type of

collaboration through those different lenses as well

with that tool of an Office of Outdoor Recreation.

So I think it's definitely a category.

I agree with Mark.

It's one of the reasons I got involved as well.

>> Can you hear me okay?

>> Gratia Joice: Yes.

>> Okay, great.

So I agree 100% with what has said about the importance

of this.

I think this is why this whole approach was started and

this whole concept of the task force.

My question would be is this a working group or a task

force with a topic like the other ones?

Right?

We talk about access.

We talk about promotion.

We talk about the other approaches to spreading the

word on outdoor recreation.

But collaboration seems to kind of be the theme that

unites all of this.

And it's kind of the, again, the foundation for what

we're trying to accomplish here, and my fear is that if

we create a collaboration focused task force that that

would almost become too siloed.

Like, it would be -- that task force would be working

on its own, and not as in tune with the other groups.

And so, you know, perhaps what we would consider is

that maybe the collaboration part of it is a almost

like a steering committee or a council of some sort

that has maybe one or two people from each of the other

task forces working together to kind of identify ways

that all of this can be threaded together.

It kind of seems like this concept of an outdoor -- an

Office of Outdoor Recreation is going to be the -- how

we define what that collaboration looks like going

forward.

But I just -- again, I love the idea of the

collaboration.

I think it's a really critical part of this.

I just don't know if it's an isolated working group

that's not threaded along with the others.

>> Gratia?

>> Gratia Joice: Hey, John.

>> John Edman:

[ Indiscernible ]

I was thinking kind of along the lines of the last

comment.

And while I totally agree with everything that has been

said and particularly about the importance of

collaboration, when you look at sort of those pillars

of access and promotion and economic development and

conservation, those are -- those are action things that

you can accomplish at the end.

Where I just wondering, I was going to ask the group,

isn't collaboration something that permeates every

single one of those things that we're talking about as

opposed to a stand-alone that you're just going to do

collaboration over here and you don't do collaboration

in those other things.

To me, I think it's critical for every single of the

pillars that have a defined outcome.

And collaboration's just kind of one of the means to

get there.

That's kind of what I was thinking.

So that last comment just made me want to jump in.

>> Gratia Joice: Thanks, John.

Before folks respond to John, there was a comment from

Aaron, who can't access his mist.

He said my comment on collaboration, completely support

the collaboration as shown and having the goals --

having goals of the collaboration would be good to

develop as well.

Also, echo that this will be the most interesting to

break new ground on as it is new ground.

And then Sarah had a comment.

That said, there are good models of cross-sector

collaboration from other states, which I'm happy to

share.

[ audio cut out ]

>> Gratia, you've broken up.

>> Gratia Joice: Oh, okay.

Sorry.

I'm going to copy and paste Aaron's comment.

Into the chat.

So everybody can see it.

>> Hi, this is Andrew.

Just one question then for the group, because great --

really great points here.

Is if -- is it -- I mean, is it worth having a

collaboration group if the point of the group is to try

to understand what the strengths, weaknesses, and

opportunities and concerns are around collaboration as

a guiding thought?

Or is it better to capture that in the other ones?

And so that's sort of a question, because it seems like

the group is leaning towards not having it as its own

section, but I wonder if it's worth thinking about it

in that point of the breaking it apart is not to say

that it's not going to be part of the other ones, but

to say it's, like, to focus on how to collaborate or

not.

And just a comment/question.

>> Hi, this is Katy.

I agree with that.

I do also agree with the points that everybody is

raising about the importance of collaboration, you

know, really cutting across, again, all of the

platforms.

But I do potentially see the opportunity for a working

group to be able to dig in to some of that, you know,

SWOT or SWOC analysis to be able to add a little bit of

just more in-depth thinking that then the broader group

would, you know, react to and add to, because I also

see, you know, access as something that should cut

across all as well.

So I think a lot of these pillars, you know, are really

instrumental to it.

So I would just -- I would just kind of amplify what

was just said about, you know, thinking that there

still could be opportunity for a smaller group to at

least dig a little bit deeper within benefit of the

rest of the group joining in.

>> This is Hansi speaking again.

Is it maybe reality just the word?

It is coordination instead of collaboration?

And then back to the earlier points, and that

collaboration is just something that is going to occur

across the board?

>> This is J.R.

Hansi, I think you just nailed it on the head.

I think collaboration and coordination are somewhat

synonymous with one another.

And as kind of an underpinning that concept is, you

know, we -- if you look at the makeup of this group,

we're all unique stakeholders.

We all bring unique strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities, to contribute and so on and so forth.

I think collaboration and coordination is really, how

do we create the tools, the collaboration tools, the

coordination tools, to both promote outdoor recreation,

work towards equitable and inclusive access, and all of

those other things.

But I do think back to the point that was made earlier,

is that there are I think is an opportunity for a

sub-group or task force or whatever we want to call it,

to really be the steward of this idea of collaboration

as we create recommendations around those other key

categories, to make sure that collaboration as an

underpinning this work is always top of mind.

So how do we make sure that we are firstly and

effectively -- efficiently and effectively taking the

resources and strengths of the individual stakeholders,

both on the receiving end of this work, but also on the

contribution end of this work, that those things are

being put forward with a collaborative spirit.

To, like I said, achieving more equitable access and

inclusive access, and doing a better job of marketing

and promoting all of the benefits of outdoor recreation

whether it's mind, body, and spirit, financial,

whatever it is, I think that's -- that's kind of the

focus that I think we need to have throughout all of

the other areas of work.

>> This is Asha again, I'd like to add something just

based on what I heard from folks who responded when I

asked what can we do better on this?

And a lot of folks said in terms of collaboration of

working directly with communities and community

organizations better working in -- and are part of the

communities we're trying to reach.

And I don't see that listed on this list, but I want to

add it, just because I think, you know, we're talking

about collaborating or coordinating with partners, but

also I think it's looping in community members and the

organizations that are, like, doing that direct work in

community and that are talking to people and hearing

from folks of what, you know, what's happening on the

ground level.

I think that's really important that we don't leave

those voices out as we keep doing this.

>> Thanks, Asha.

We can add that to the list.

So I think -- just kind of going back to a couple

comments that were made about, you know, collaboration

being the goal of kind of this whole effort in general,

I think, you know, we're breaking up into these work

groups to kind of be more efficient, especially in this

kind of virtual world we're living in right now.

But when we do come back together, and share out our

findings and our ideas, we really will need to focus on

making connections between all these different work

groups, thoughts and ideas to come up with that

cohesive set of ideas to set -- to -- to put forth.

And so, you know, whether we -- you all decide that

collaboration is its own work group or maybe some kind

of other type of body within the task force, I think,

you know, with all these topics, we'll just have to

make sure that when we come back together, we aren't

siloed and that we're making cross-connections between

all of the good work each work group will be diving

into.

Oh, sorry, Mark.

I'm understanding what you're saying now.

There we go.

Mark, is that what you were looking for?

Okay.

Got it.

>> Yeah, yeah, this is it.

I just wanted to look at it again.

Somebody had made, you know, the comment, which I think

is a good one.

Of the areas of focus I think are different types of

things.

You know, access is an issue itself.

So something that could be focused on.

Whereas collaboration and promotion are strategies to

address some of the issues we have.

And so the only thing I guess I would maybe caution us

on is, are we ready to break into focus groups and into

good, tight, functional focus areas that will

complement each other, or is there going to be

definitely a very different focus and a lot of overlap

if we -- if we go too quickly?

I guess -- I don't know if that makes sense, but I

think the point, again, somebody had made about each of

these being different types of things I think is very

valid.

>> This is Andrew again.

Just one thing to note, and this is jumping a little

bit to the -- kind of the next steps once we have the

categories organized, is that I think when people --

you know, depending on people's capacity and their time

availability and things, you know, people can be in

more than one of these work groups too, depending on,

like, their opportunity.

So there can be some cross-poll nation too in that

regard.

Cross-pollination.

>> So I guess if we do move forward, just so we can

move on to one of the next areas, I've kind of heard

two ideas.

One, to keep collaboration or maybe rename is

coordination -- rename it coordination, a focus area to

do a SWOT analysis for.

Or I've heard this other idea of maybe having a couple

people --

[ audio cut out ]

Subcommittee of sorts.

So before we move forward.

I just wanted to get feedback on those two ideas and

hopefully we can settle on an idea.

>> So this is Hansi speaking again.

So to Mark's point, on, you know, the different issues

versus strategies, I do feel like if you changed

collaboration to coordination, it does go from a

strategy to an issue.

I just know in my own personal work up here in Duluth

and working with the city of Duluth that, you know,

kind of help create an outdoor community up here, we

spent a good year coordinating different groups that

just were not communicating or working together.

So I do feel there's a coordination issue.

You could term it a collaboration issue.

But I do think there's an issue there.

And I would also think the same of promotion and the

idea that we've not done a good job of how we've told

whether it's our own citizens, where they can and --

can enjoy outdoor recreation or the country as a whole

that other folks can come here as well.

So there is still an issue there, but I do take the

point with the strategy comments.

>> Thanks, Hansi.

Would folks be in favor of changing collaboration to

coordination?

>> This is Greg.

That's fine with me.

I think that makes sense.

>> Same from J.R.

>> This is Mark.

Yeah, it makes sense.

>> This is Katy.

I'm fine with changing the wording as well.

Do we have a number and are we trying to narrow down

the number?

We have, like, six up on the screen right now.

Are we trying to narrow that down.

How many working groups are we trying to shoot for?

>> Gratia Joice: We don't have a firm number on it.

You know, we're hoping that there'll be at least three

task force members per group.

So that would, you know, probably cap it at six Max.

But I think if there are fewer than that, that's fine

too.

So, you know, we didn't want to put a firm number in

case you all wanted to recategorize these ideas in

different ways.

All right.

We're getting a few comments.

In support of changing the category from collaboration

to coordination.

Okay.

Let me give it a couple more seconds.

Then we can move on to the next category.

Okay, hearing nothing.

So the next idea was related to economic development.

And those of you who maybe have the spreadsheet open,

you probably can see that there are a handful of ideas

not listed here that were also related to the category

of economic development.

So is this a topic you all want to dive into?

>> This is Greg here.

Greg Lais.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of people wanting to

dive into it, but I almost think that it has to be

there, I mean, myself.

As part of the, you know, part of the formula here, it

involves, you know, economic development.

And so my three cents is that it probably has to be

here.

[Overlapping conversations]

>> Gratia Joice: I was just going to note that Matt

Gruhn and Katy and Aaron also have put some comments in

that they are also in support of this.

>> Hi, Gratia, this is Steven, and also I would just

point out that in under the promotion category, just a

couple of very relevant bullet points for economic

development as well.

>> Yeah, this is Perry.

The more successful counties that I have worked with,

when they have a comprehensive recreational trail plan,

that includes economic development, they seem to be the

most successful.

So I think this has to be a category.

>> And this is J.R.

I think -- I think we also have to recognize that there

are significant portions of the state of Minnesota that

are quickly having to transition to a service economy

from, you know, whether it's a manufacturing economy or

a resource extraction committee.

Or whatever it is.

So I think economic development is definitely an

important part of this because, you know, there is such

a broad array of recreational students in part of

the -- opportunities in parts of the state that are

quickly turning to, you know, providing services

related to outdoor recreation to economic development

and what that means for the future for these

communities that support outdoor recreation, how that

all ties together.

>> This is Hansi speaking as well.

I'd back up that as well and the fact that the idea of

planning also opens up the discussion to the public as

a whole and to the communities as a whole to all these

other topics that we're talking about.

So it's our chance to tap into all the voices in a

community that might want to better the quality of life

in their community as well.

>> Gratia Joice: We had a comment from Mary Bauer

related to this saying, we have to engage the local

communities and citizens to support outdoor recreation

in these areas.

Partner with local organizations.

>> This is Asha gone.

And I'm not quite sure if this is where it fits or not,

but something I heard from folks when I was, you know,

asking about, you know, what we should be focusing on,

a lot of people talked about funding in terms of

funding programs and communities to be able to come

recreate.

Because financial, you know, there are financial

obstacles that exist both in, you know, individual

communities but also in community organizations.

And so I'm not -- like I said, I'm not sure that it

fits right here, but -- because it could also fit in,

like, the access piece of it too.

But it's just something that I wanted to make sure that

at least gets brought up because that's what I was

hearing from folks.

>> Gratia Joice: Thanks, Asha.

Sarah has a similar point that says, are there

additional things that we should be thinking about

economic development?

It seems planning and investment are just a part of

economic development.

So I think, you know, it sounds like there is a lot of

interest in this being a work group area.

And I think, you know, as folks dive into this that,

you know, they should be thinking, you know, beyond

just planning and investment and infrastructure and

kind of look at economic development as a whole related

to outdoor recreation.

>> Gratia, this is Joe Henry.

You know, depending upon what we talk about when we

talk about, you know, development, you know, the world

could look a lot different too with COVID-19 and just

how money is divvied out.

What pools of money are available?

Perhaps the influence that's needed to put preference

to some of the outdoor recreation opportunities moving

forward, I think all those will be important topics.

>> Gratia Joice: Thanks, Joe.

>> You know, Gratia, just one more quick comment, this

is J.R. from Polaris again, with economic development.

Economic development also requires us to go out and get

a much more detailed survey of the various

stakeholders.

From a myriad of perspectives.

You know, whether it's the type of stakeholder, the

regional, you know, regional elements of where these

stakeholders are, and really reach down into the folks

who are actually providing the recreational

opportunities, those are the ones who stand to benefit

economically from this.

But they also have a great -- they're also a great

resource for helping us market those opportunities.

So as we look at creating inclusive and equitable

access, it also gets back to how do we work with these

partners who stand to benefit economically from outdoor

recreation to make sure that they're doing a great job

communicating those opportunities, kind of, you know,

what access opportunities exist, how are they working

to make them for inclusive and equitable, and really

focusing in on how to get that message for everything,

you know, that Minnesota has to offer and why we're

more attractive a state or a community vote or

recreation than some of our competitors even

regionally.

I think economic development serves as a really a

strong base by which we look at things from top to

bottom, soup to nuts, to, you know, how we push these

ideas forward and make them beneficial to all

stakeholders?

And then finally, you know, as I've worked across, you

know, dozens of states in the last few years on this

issue, I would say that, you know, folks in the

positions of commissioner Strommen and director Edman,

they almost universally talk about in this regard.

If we're here for Minnesota, just know that there are

people in Wisconsin, there are people in Michigan,

there are people in, you know, Missouri and other

states who are thinking about it for these very

reasons, the economics of it.

So I think it would be really important for us to also

make sure that we're looking at it through that lens.

>> Gratia Joice: Thanks, J.R.

Molly had a question.

Are budget cuts going to last a few years for outdoor

recreation opportunities?

I don't know if one of our chairs wants to answer that

one.

>> I think right now it's just too soon.

We'd be speculating.

>> Gratia Joice: Thanks, Randolph.

>> Can I add something?

Again, sorry to speak up again.

This is J.R.

But I was on -- I sit on governor Gretchen Whitmer's

work group for reopening the state of Michigan, and

Pierre, Michigan did a survey in the last couple of

weeks where it said that 88% of Michiganders said the

first thing they want to do in the first 90 days as a

part of reopening is recreate outside.

And so I think that in and had it itself highlights the

importance and frankly the opportunity to mate has to

really make some investments here in outdoor

recreation.

I think the crisis that we find ourselves in here today

highlights all of, you know, the physical, mental,

emotional benefits of getting outside and frankly how

to do things in a very safe and socially distanced way.

Where, you know, I think we only stand to benefit from

the fact that people are really turning to the outdoors

as an opportunity to engage in healthy activity.

>> This is Mark Norquist.

The only thing I would add on this slide is maybe just

a little bit of a repositioning of the wording.

To, you know, talk about outdoor recreation planning

and outdoor recreation investment.

So moving investment after and taking infrastructure

out.

And I only say that from the standpoint of, I think my

mind, and I think a lot of people's would quickly go to

building out infrastructure, simple infrastructure.

A simple example would be boat ramps or something like

that.

And I think this is a much bigger issue, and I think

we've touched on it in a few ways here.

This is a big topic.

And I would want to make sure that any investments are

looked at holistically.

So as an example, could be education.

It could be promotion.

It could be any number of different things beyond

physical infrastructure.

And so that's my only comment.

>> Gratia Joice: Thank you, Mark.

I just wanted to -- oh, go ahead, Joe.

>> Joe Henry: I was going to say, Mark, Joe Henry,

I agree with you and I think there's a lot of ways to

spend that money effectively in addition to

infrastructure.

And, you know, I -- I also have my fears that, you

know, with all this money being spent on so many

different programs right now, that naturally the pool

of money and perhaps from the state of Minnesota and

such will be maybe look a little bit different.

So there might be other opportunities, maybe

opportunities that haven't existed in the past.

I also, you know, know that fishing license sales for

the state of Minnesota are way up during COVID-19.

And so, you know, J.R., to your point, I think there is

evidence that people are getting outdoors and

recreating as part of this, and I think that's a huge

opportunity right now.

>> Gratia Joice: Thanks, Joe.

I just wanted to point to Asha's comment that

stakeholders equal outdoor retailers, et cetera, and it

would also be cool if we could consider stakeholders as

our Minnesota residents and visitors too.

If we knew, asked residents what they want, then we

could be sure that industry stakeholders are meeting

the needs of the people.

And then Katy added, I think we as a group are speaking

more broadly about stakeholders to encompass residents,

et cetera, as well.

But absolutely agree.

We need to be explicit about how we define

stakeholders.

That's some good food for thought.

And added, at D.N.R. we have a broad definition which

includes industry, residents, and visitors.

Randolph added.

All right.

So it does seem like there's a lot of interest related

to this category.

So this will form a work group.

Just for the sake of time, I'm going to move on.

I think promotion.

Did I do promotion?

I'm losing track of everything I've done.

I think promotion is next.

So is this something the task force wants to dive into?

Would you call it promotion?

Would you change it to something else?

>> I think definitely this is an area.

This is Mark Norquist.

I think this is definitely an area, obviously a lot of

interest.

I think from a lot of people on this.

I think the term "Promotion" is just fine.

As long as we keep it within the context of the broader

term of promoting outdoor recreation and not the

functional aspect of creating a promotion.

But truly how do we promote outdoor rec.

>> Hey, guys, Steven, Gear Junkie.

I think like with a lot of these areas, I'd like to

better understand where we're not sort of duplicating

other efforts.

Obviously Explore Minnesota is all about promoting the

state and building content and marketing, and they do a

great job.

So what could -- what could our group add to sort of

the directional conversation around promotion?

I don't know.

I guess I'm asking a question, like, are there areas

that we might look to not focus on because we feel like

there are other entities and pieces of this puzzle

where it's already -- it's already owned by somebody

else, and why do we need to look at that?

I guess that's a question.

>> Steven, this is Mark.

I'll just respond my thoughts relative to that.

I guess on all these categories, in my mind, I would

say we should look at them agnostic of who is actually

addressing it.

And then determine what we think is a good way, would

the best way forward.

So as an example, on the last category of economic

development, I would say we should look at creative

ways where maybe it isn't just public funding.

There are private partnerships in new ways for economic

development can occur.

Similarly, here with promotion, I think there are

absolutely current things going on, like you said,

Explore Minnesota doing things.

But if you look at specifically the hook and bullet

space of hunting/fishing, there's a enormous gap in

promoting those activities.

And I don't think necessarily it is a -- it has to be a

public or agency-led, possibly it is, but I think it's

an important issue to be looked at regardless of

whether it's public, private, or any other stakeholder.

>> Yeah, this is John Edman.

If I could just jump in to this discussion about

promotion, and just sort of a general comment.

And maybe this is related to one of the earlier

questions.

Is that frankly I think that if you broaden up that

category to promotion and public awareness, that --

those are kind of two different things, and I read

through a lot of the bullet points, it's -- it's

awareness of residents and nonresidents, that's more

than just marketing, per se.

And I also just want to chime in to the comment, maybe

we should look at this sort of at this point in the

discussion, maybe later on, but this point, sort of

beyond what is or isn't being done.

I mean, we could have that separate discussion, and

from what we do at Explore Minnesota, or middle of the

pack right now, and if you talk to folks in the metro

area, all we do is promote the outdoors, and if you

focus it -- if you talk to people out in Greater

Minnesota, they say all we do is promote the metro

area.

So it's kind of the can't win.

So if we just park that aside for right now, it's what

do -- what does this group want to do in this category,

and then get further down into the discussions about

what do we need to do enhance or do something else

beyond what we're doing.

But I just want to get back to my only comment about

promotion.

I really do feel that this -- reading from what you

guys had put down here, it's really more than just

promotion or marketing.

It's promotion and awareness of the outdoors.

>> Thanks, John.

There were a couple of other comments related to that.

Aaron said, it could be called promotion,

communication, positioning, awareness, et cetera.

And Perry commented, promoting or educating outdoor

opportunities.

And then to reiterate John's thought was promotion and

public awareness.

And then I also just want to jump into John's point

real quick and clarify, like, I think it's easy, you

know, you all have such great ideas and it can be easy

to jump to kind of ideas for how to improve without

first taking a step back and looking at Minnesota and

seeing what are we already doing, what are we not

doing, what do we do well, what can we build upon, what

gaps can we fill.

So I think that SWOT analysis, which is going to be the

next step of these work groups, will really kind of

help frame up where you guys want to take this in the

future.

Are there any thoughts on broadening the category to be

maybe a little bit more clear so we're not talking

specifically about promotion to maybe promotion and

public awareness?

If folks like that category?

>> Gratia, this is Greg, yes, I like that category.

And I also loving the first bullet point on this slide.

>> Yeah, this is J.R.

I agree with what Greg just said.

>> Gratia Joice: Great.

We're getting some comments.

Matt, Breanne, and Mary.

Like promotion and public awareness as well.

Okay.

With that, we can move on.

To conservation.

Creating creative ways to invest in conservation of

wild places.

Is this an area that the task force wants to dive into?

>> This is Hansi.

I'll jump in on this one.

The bullet point to me makes a lot of sense, but I

think conservation is certainly much wider than that.

And I think if we're going to consider having this as

one of the pillars, then we should, or one of the work

groups, that we also just enter the idea of stewardship

and maintaining a sense of place, as I said in the last

meeting, and I think I said in my homework is if we

don't keep and maintain a sense of place, we don't have

a real product to really promote.

So yeah, I feel like conservation is a key part of

that.

>> Yeah, you know, this is J.R. from Polaris again.

I think stewardship is, you know, Hansi just used the

term stewardship, and I know from a number of the

stakeholder groups that Polaris serves and works with

is, you know, they are not only uses of the land, but

also some of the most strident voices for conserving

the benefits of the land over time, and whether it be,

you know, cleaning up, you know, doing signage, you

know, and they're -- many of them are all volunteers.

So -- and I know that all of us on this call have in

some way, shape, or form have volunteered our time or

have collaborated with other volunteer groups to be

good stewards of the resources that we have.

So I think looking at it, even further beyond

conservation, and really looking at it from the

perspective of, how do we promote good stewardship and

maybe conservation is encompassed within that.

>> Gratia Joice: Would folks be in favor of

changing it to stewardship?

>> Yeah, this is Perry.

I like the word stewardship.

I think it brings it to the individual more.

>> This is Hansi again.

I would support that.

I think we all have to recognize that regardless of

what type of recreation we like to do, there's always

an impact and that the word stewardship at least

acknowledges that, but then it also acknowledges that

there is a way to steward it and maintain it, and res

it.

Respect it.

>> Hey, guys, this is Joe again.

Say, I like stewardship.

The one thing I just don't want to lose is, you know,

conservation can mean a lot of different things too,

and that can be regulations, it can be just a myriad of

things, and those are some pretty important tools when

we talk about our ultimate goals of whatever

conservation or stewardship means to us.

And, you know, what part of our SWOT analysis perhaps

we're talking about.

And that's all I have.

>> Gratia Joice: Comments, pro stewardship, as it

creates ownership in the outdoors.

To Joe's point, we -- do we want to keep it simple with

stewardship?

We could add stewardship and conservation.

Or, you know, as the work group moves forward, they'll

just have to keep in mind that conservation kind of

from all those angles.

Is going to be included.

In that.

In that analysis.

>> This is Andrew.

One thing to add, I believe in the charter, it

references one of the values as environmental

stewardship.

The words are used -- that's how the words are used

there.

>> Gratia Joice: Thanks for pointing that out,

Andrew.

>> This is Mark.

I like stewardship.

And, Gratia, I think your idea of stewardship and

conservation maybe is better, though, because I think

it would be important not to lose sight of conservation

as a underlying value and principle.

It's a core part of I think the Minnesota identity and

definitely with the hunting and fishing community, you

know, you look at the publication of the D.N.R. as the

conservation volunteer.

And I think it does put a finer point on stewardship,

which is a bit more broad.

So I do like the idea of having stewardship and

conservation as the title of it.

>> This is Hansi again.

And I think I could go with both.

But it does strike me that conservation could be an act

of stewardship.

[ Laughter ]

But I think having both in there kind of covers all

bases.

>> Yeah, this is J.R.

I agree with what Hansi just said.

But I like Randolph's idea two of one "consewardship."

>> All right, not hearing anything else, we'll go with

stewardship and conservation.

All right, and then we have this last one that we threw

in, this broad category called "Other," which is

consider the creation of a permanent outdoor council to

update policy makers on relevant issues and

opportunities.

Any response?

[ audio cut out ]

>> Hey, everybody, this is J.R.

This is one that I proposed.

And just, you know, maybe some background on why is,

you know, there, you know, I think, you know, well over

a dozen, if not a couple dozen now, states that have

these sorts of things.

And I think what we're working on is a very short

timeline of something that is, you know, a lifelong

passion for all of us in our own unique way and I think

is indicative of the importance of working towards some

sort of long-range steward, if you will, of the

concepts and ideas that we come up with as a part of

this work.

I mean, we're coming up with the ideas, but then those

things need to be put into action.

I think it'll be on someone else in some different form

or body that will bring the work and the ideas and the

recommendations that we have will bring those things to

life over time.

>> Gratia Joice: Katy had a similar comment saying,

identification this will come up as a recommendation

through other working groups.

>> This is Perry.

I just want to be clear.

Outdoor council, advisory council, but we're not

talking about another state department, correct?

>> Gratia Joice: Defer to J.R. since this was his

comment.

>> Yeah, Perry, I think -- I think this is -- this

isn't a department in and of itself.

It's probably some coordinated body that provides

recommendations over time.

To both elected, appointed, and administrative

Representatives who have responsibility over outdoor

recreation programming, investments, marketing,

promotions, and, you know, those who are focused on

furthering the idea around access and issues of

inclusivity and so and so forth.

I think it's probably a more long-range grouping of

people to help make sure that this work is shepherded

through the decision making process as it comes to

life, rather than its own separate department or

agency.

>> Thank you for the clarity.

I agree.

>> J.R.:  And I also agree too with the idea that I

mean this doesn't need to be its own stand-alone work

group.

I think this is going to be a result of the other silos

of work that are done that this will ultimately be

decided on whether a strong recommendation or not.

>> This is Mark.

This one definitely does feel like an outlier.

In terms of the -- as compared to the others.

I think very well this, you know, is could be the

direction that we end up recommending, but I think it

does get to that bigger question of what are we working

towards?

You know, some states have the offices.

Some states have a council like this.

Others may have something else.

I guess I'm not familiar with all of them.

But it does feel like maybe this is phase two sort of

part of an outcome of the working groups.

>> Yeah, I would kind of agree with that.

It's the -- the interesting part of the mechanics of

what the recommendations may or may not be, and it

really may come to our SWOT analysis and what we want

to achieve or think that we can achieve in the state

and what sort of structure will give us the most power

to do that.

And this may or may not be that.

At this point.

>> Gratia Joice: Are there any thoughts and kind of

like tabling this as an idea, until we've completed the

SWOTs and had, you know, taken a good look at what

would work well for Minnesota?

>> This is J.R.

I came up with the idea, and I agree that that's the

best course of action.

So others if you speak up, you won't offend me at all.

[ Laughter ]

>> Sounds good to me.

This is Hansi.

>> Yeah, it sounds good.

This is Mark.

>> Gratia Joice: All right, we're getting a handful

of messages in support of that as well.

All right.

So that brought us to the end of --

I kind of reiterate our decisions today before we talk

about next steps and how we'll be breaking up into

these work groups and completing the SWOT.

So we have access, coordination, economic development,

promotion and public awareness, and then stewardship

and conservation as our chosen categories.

The next -- so next I will briefly run through what --

let's see if my computer will go forward.

There we go.

What we'll be doing next.

So thank you all so much for all your contributions to

both the homework assignment and the conversation

today.

I do encourage you all to go back and spend some time

in that spreadsheet if you haven't yet.

There are so many good nuggets and ideas in there that

I think will be really beneficial for the work groups

moving forward.

So these focus areas that you just helped identify will

be the basis for these work groups.

And so this enters us into phase two of our task force

timeline.

So we will be forming work groups, completing SWOT

analyses, and then bringing these back to the larger

group to share with one another.

Tomorrow you will all be sent a survey where you can

identify what work group you are interested in being a

part of.

You'll have about one week to complete this, so

hopefully we can get those groups formed and get people

working soon.

We ask that every task force member is in at least one

work group.

And if you want to be in two, that's fine too.

It just may take a little bit more coordination between

the groups to make sure you're not double-books.

Double-booked.

If and if you're interested in being in three, contact

me and let me know.

[ audio cut out ]

Capacity.

You will also be asked if you are interested in being a

leader of your work group.

In this role you will help coordinate information

between work group members, lead work as necessary, and

then communicate back with the project staff, me and

Andrew.

And like I mentioned, we would love for at least three

task force members to be in each -- each group.

And so we'll kind of have to see how everybody selects

and go from there.

If there is a work group that has a bunch of people in

it, you have the option to split up and kind of work in

two separate groups, if that's more efficient for you

all, but we'll kind of trouble-shoot as we go.

And then so after we foreman work groups and you kind

of know which group you're in, we're going to ask that

everybody complete a SWOT analysis on their own before

doing it with their work group to start kind of

generating ideas and kind of from your particular

corner, what does access, for example, look like in

Minnesota?

Through a SWOT analysis.

And then you'll take these individual SWOTs, back to

your work group and start forming one for your work

group topic if that makes sense.

So I said I would get into a little bit of what the

SWOT is.

So SWOT stands for strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities, or threats or challenges.

The idea with threat is that it can sound kind of

dooming and not, you know, hard to anticipate, whereas

challenge can sound, you know -- [ audio cut out ]

>> Of overcoming challenge.

So you'll take whatever category you're in and look at

it from all of these different angles related to that

category in Minnesota.

I'll be sending out some information and templates to

help you through this process.

But right on the screen here, you can see what some of

the things that fall into each category is.

So to give -- to make sure we have plenty of time to do

this and do it well, we are going to use the June

meeting date to work as small groups related to your

topic.

So you'll have up until that June meeting to complete

your individual SWOT.

And then you'll bring it back to your work group to

share.

So we will not be meeting as a full task force.

In June.

As work groups, it's up to you to decide exactly when

you want to meet.

Since people already have June 25th blocked off on

their calendars, it may work well to meet then, but you

can discuss that in your smaller groups.

If folks are in two different work groups, work groups

may have to meet at different times to allow people to

participate in both sessions.

And Andrew and I are happy to help coordinate schedules

and set up meetings for you all using either Skype or

WebEx.

But if you have a preferred platform that you want to

use for your work group like zoom, you can do that too.

To make sure that work groups are accomplishing this

work, we will set a due date for your work group SWOT,

probably in early to mid-July.

And then during the July --

[ audio cut out ]

Work groups report their analysis and get larger task

force feedback.

This process of completing the SWOT analyses will

hopefully help you all identify where the opportunities

and gaps are in Minnesota and start thinking about

potential recommendations for the D.N.R. and explore

Minnesota.

Once we do that, we will move on to phase three where

we will look to other states and how they're

accomplishing this work to see what would work best for

Minnesota before we finalize ours recommendations.

Like I said, I'm going to be sending out a lot more

info on this.

Tomorrow.

With that survey.

To get you all assigned to a work group.

So look forward to that.

But I'm happy to answer any questions that folks have

right now as well.

>> Hey, Gratia, this is Joe Henry.

Just a quick question.

You know, you probably have it set up just perfectly

the way it's set up.

The one thing I'm thinking about is I think through a

SWOT analysis, sometimes you don't know what you don't

know.

And I guess it would be kind of be helpful to have some

of that information of what other states are doing so

well going into a SWOT analysis.

But that's maybe not so easy to do either.

I don't know.

>> Gratia Joice: Yeah, that's a good thought, Joe.

And I think our idea with doing it this way is that,

you know, we really want to make sure we understand the

problem before we come up with a solution.

And sometimes looking ahead to what other states are

doing, it can be easy to see a solution without fully

realizing if it's a appropriate for Minnesota.

So I think that is -- that was kind of our thought

process behind how we have it set up.

But I can definitely understand that --

[ audio cut out ]

I think that's really effective for them.

>> And I agree.

That's fine.

You know, sometimes we might not know we have a

problem.

Until we take a look what other states are doing, and

realize, gosh, we should have been doing that all

along.

But nonetheless, we can look at it on the back end.

>> Gratia, this is Randolph.

I just wanted to real quick that when these groups

are -- when we break into these smaller independent

work groups, I think if the group determines that some

additional outside expertise might be helpful in

developing their work product, I think we could work on

facilitating folks to come in and share information and

knowledge with the team.

If that is desired by the team.

>> Gratia Joice: Yeah, thank you for sharing that

Randolph.

So Sarah asks, is there a process for collecting

information from Minnesota residents?

Seems particularly important for understanding access

or lack of access.

Yes, Sarah, that is a really good question.

I think once we have the task force -- once you guys

have generated some ideas and information, then we will

be going back to the public for feedback.

And so that definitely will be a part of the process.

And it just won't happen --

[ audio cut out ]

Are there any other questions?

>> I think we lost you there for a minute.

>> Gratia Joice: Oh, you did?

>> Maybe about ten seconds.

>> Gratia Joice: Okay.

I'll just reiterate that we will be going to our

Minnesota residents to seek feedback and get their

ideas on this.

We're waiting until we have a little bit more meat for

them to react to instead of asking kind of blanketed

questions -- blanket questions, so we can hopefully get

more specific feedback and ideas from them.

All right.

Well, like I said, look forward to an email with more

details later this week from me on that.

And then feel free to reach out with any other

thoughts, ideas, or questions once you get that email.

Should you have any.

Next we're going to move on to our public comments and

questions.

Just reading a message real quick.

Oh, yeah, Randolph also just brought up, it would be

helpful to hear from this group on any strategies you

recommend for public engagement.

So it looks like we have three public comments.

Let me just pull this up.

Comment from Holly Larson who is with the national park

service.

She said, comments on areas of focus.

Address outdoor recreation facilities and

infrastructure, preferably as a separate category.

Need to address issues like backlog of maintenance

needs, sustainable development, and opportunities for

maintenance and sharing.

Do we have any task force or chair reactions to Holly's

comment?

>> This is Hansi.

I would just respond that especially in the backlog and

maintenance aspect, it falls pretty squarely in that

stewardship/conservation category, and certainly is

something that will be on my mind when we're looking at

those SWOT analyses.

>> Gratia Joice: Thanks, Hansi.

Holy had another comment.

Holly had another comment.

Address funding for outdoor recreation facilities

development and operations and maintenance in one of

the areas or as a separate work group.

Any member or chair reactions to where that could fall

or thoughts on that?

>> Yeah, this is Mark.

I think that both of those really do overlap within the

stewardship/conservation side of it.

I would see that as one of the, you know, in the SWOT

analysis, that coming out as one of the key issues,

which is the backlog of maintenance, and I think

similarly, if it is a question of what I had brought

up, in my response to the survey questions was the

funding model for the future.

When we look at things like a lot of, you know, agency

funding coming from license sales and other excise tax

funding models that have certain declining

participation groups, we've got some real challenges

economically, and I think we need to look at those

holistically, but I think those are -- what Holly

brings up are great examples of very specific things

that need to be addressed in the near term.

>> Mark Norquist: Thanks, Mark.

>> Gratia Joice: Thanks, Mark.

Then her last comment was, in the coordination area,

include cross-agency collaboration with local,

regional, and federal recreation providers as well as

private recreation providers.

I think that fits very well within the coordination

work group.

All right.

So that's all we had for public comments and questions.

A note to the public, if you have any questions that

come up after the meeting, please feel free to send the

outdoor task force email message that is -- will be

listed on the last slide.

So with that, I'm going to turn it over to our chairs,

for some parting words.

>> Yeah, this is John.

I just want to conclude the meeting here by thanking

everybody for taking the time to be here today.

Hopefully this meeting was a little bit more what a lot

of you were hoping it would be.

I mean, it was very interactive, and I just love the

comments that we received from all of you, and I really

look forward to hearing more from the individual work

groups about some of your ideas from your SWOT

analysis.

So I think we really got the ball rolling with this

meeting.

I hope you think so as well.

That if there's anything further you think that we

should be doing or looking at differently, please let

us know.

But thanks, everybody, for taking the time today.

Randolph?

>> Yeah, just want to reiterate, that was a great

conversation.

I also want to say thanks to Gratia and Andrew for the

work you did today and the in between the last two

meetings.

You did a lot of work and it shows.

One of the hopes I had coming into today's meeting was

that we -- that our trajectory was a bit more clear

than it was in the last meeting.

I think in the last meeting, we were -- we had just

jumped out of the airplane.

We were at 80,000 feet and the clouds were covering the

ground, and we couldn't quite see where we were going,

and our landing point.

But I think we're slowly descending, and we're getting

closer to the how and what of what we're going to do,

and we're going to go and jump into SWOT and small

groups and this -- this will really become more clear

as we go along I think and ultimately provide

recommendations in December.

I also wanted to reiterate that I have an open door

policy.

If anybody has any questions, concerns, thoughts,

comments, you can always email me-give me a call or

text or whatever.

So thanks for the conversation today.

And I'll send it back to you, Gratia.

>> Gratia Joice: Awesome.

Thank you, John and Randolph, and thank you to all the

task force members for your great work on your homework

and the participation today.

It was really energizing and inspiring to read all of

your good ideas and to hear them today.

So thank you all for coming today.

And I look forward to working with you all going

forward and look out for that email from me hopefully

tomorrow, and please fill that out fairly quickly just

so we can get our work groups in motion.

So -- and that's all we have for today.

So thank you very much.

>> Thanks, everyone.

>> Thanks a lot.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Thanks.

>> Thank you.

>> Thanks, everybody.

                       DISCLAIMER

 This text is being provided in a lightly edited draft

 format and is the work product of the CART captioner.

  Any reproduction, publication, or other use of this

  CART file without the express written consent of the

            captioner is strictly prohibited.

  Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is

     provided in order to facilitate communication

  accessibility, and this lightly edited CART file may

  not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings,

 nor should it be considered in any way as a certified

  document.  Due to the live nature of the event, some

  names and/or terms may be misspelled. This text may

   also contain phonetic attempts at sounds and words

    that were spoken, and environmental sounds that

               occurred during the event.