Democrats Want a Permit to Pick Berries? HB 72 Sparks Backlash — and Satire

By MDBayNews Staff

As Maryland families wrestle with rising utility bills, public safety concerns, and looming budget pressures, one proposal moving through Annapolis has left many scratching their heads.

House Bill 72, sponsored by Delegate A. Charkoudian, would establish an “Edible Forests and Foraging Program” within the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. On its face, the bill sounds harmless — even wholesome. Who doesn’t like the idea of edible forests?

But buried in the structure of the proposal is something that has sparked controversy: a requirement that individuals obtain a state permit to forage in designated areas, along with an application fee and a state-managed regulatory framework.

Yes — a permit to forage.

What HB 72 Would Do

According to the bill synopsis, HB 72 would:

• Create an Edible Forests and Foraging Program within DNR
• Require individuals to obtain a foraging permit in designated areas
• Allow the state to charge a permit application fee
• Establish a fee waiver process for financial hardship
• Authorize the Department to establish and maintain edible forests on state land, subject to funding

In other words, the state would formalize and regulate the act of collecting berries, mushrooms, or other edible plants on certain public lands.

Supporters frame it as environmental stewardship and structured land management. Critics see something else: another expansion of government oversight into everyday life.

Delegate Grammer’s “Foraging Police”

Delegate Robin Grammer took to social media with a satirical image poking fun at the bill. The illustration depicted a fictional “Government Foraging Permit Station,” complete with officers issuing licenses, inspecting mushrooms, and collecting “picking taxes.”

The joke landed because it feels close enough to reality to make people uncomfortable.

One commenter asked bluntly: “So now you’re trying to tax nature?”

Grammer clarified that the post was satire and that he opposes the bill. But the reaction highlights a deeper frustration among voters: why is Annapolis focused on regulating foraging while serious economic and public safety issues persist?

The Broader Pattern

This is not happening in a vacuum.

This legislative session has already seen debates over expanded regulatory frameworks in energy, housing, environmental controls, and local governance. Critics argue that the dominant party in Annapolis continues to default to regulation and bureaucracy as the answer to nearly every issue.

HB 72 fits that pattern.

Instead of simply allowing responsible foraging under existing conservation rules, the state would create:

• A permit structure
• A fee schedule
• Administrative oversight
• Enforcement authority

Every new program brings staffing, paperwork, compliance monitoring, and inevitably — enforcement.

Marylanders reasonably ask: is this really necessary?

The Slippery Question of Access

There is also a philosophical question at play.

Public lands belong to the public. While conservation and environmental protections are essential, many see foraging as a traditional, low-impact activity that connects families to nature. Requiring permits risks turning a simple act — picking wild berries with your kids — into a regulated transaction.

Even with fee waivers, the default posture becomes: permission first, freedom second.

For a state already facing affordability concerns, it sends a tone-deaf message.

Timing Matters

Maryland faces:

• Rising electricity rates
• Public safety challenges in several jurisdictions
• Transportation funding gaps
• Budgetary strain

Against that backdrop, HB 72 feels disconnected from voter priorities.

That doesn’t mean environmental programs lack merit. But the optics of regulating nature itself are difficult to defend.

Satire Reflects Sentiment

Delegate Grammer’s satirical “Foraging Police” image resonated because it tapped into a broader concern: government expansion into spaces that once required no permission.

The debate over HB 72 will likely hinge on whether it is a narrowly tailored conservation effort or another example of regulatory creep.

For many Marylanders, the idea of needing a permit to pick mushrooms is less about mushrooms — and more about where the line between stewardship and overreach should be drawn.

As Annapolis continues its 2026 session, voters are watching closely to see whether lawmakers focus on core priorities — or continue building new layers of bureaucracy in the forest.

---

If you’ve followed this session closely, you know this isn’t the first time the General Assembly has prioritized regulatory expansion over relief and reform. The question is whether voters will remember it in November.

---

Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free

MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.

If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.

Support Local Journalism

Have a tip or documents to share?

We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.

Submit a Tip

Need background research, policy analysis, or legislative clarity?

MDBayNews offers independent research and legislative analysis services, including bill summaries, issue memos, district-level context, and fact-checked opposition research. This work is informational and non-advocacy in nature.

Independent · Confidential · Non-coordinated
Candidate Services | Legislative Services | Sponsored Profiles

Want more?

For deeper analysis, strategies, playbooks, deep dives, and more, subscribe to our premium newsletter, The Blue Heron.