Protection and disclosure can both be honored.

Why we're here

The Minnehaha Off-Leash Recreation Area is one of Minneapolis's most distinctive public dog parks: a large riverfront amenity where residents, permit holders, and visitors use trails, woods, floodplain, shoreline, and Mississippi River access as part of the off-leash experience. MPRB identifies the Minnehaha dog park as part of Minnehaha Regional Park at 5399 Minnehaha Park Drive S and describes it as a partially fenced off-leash recreation area of more than six acres. MPRB also sells annual and daily off-leash permits for use of its dog-park system.

MPRB is now considering Resolution 2026-114, which directs the Superintendent to begin decommissioning the Minnehaha Off-Leash Recreation Area "at the earliest practicable date," and no later than December 31, 2026. The resolution states that MPRB learned during prior fencing work that Mni Owe Sni / Coldwater Spring, a sacred area for Dakota and other Tribal communities, is likely partially within the boundary of Minnehaha Regional Park. It also states that Mni Owe Sni was listed in the National Register of Historic Places as a Traditional Cultural Place in 2023, and that information shared by the National Park Service, Minnesota Historical Society, and Dakota representatives led to the conclusion that the off-leash recreation area is incompatible with Mni Owe Sni as a Traditional Cultural Place.

We do not dispute the importance of Mni Owe Sni. We do not dispute the need to protect burial sites, sacred places, archaeological resources, or living cultural practices. The issue is whether MPRB has created a sufficient public record to justify decommissioning an entire regional off-leash facility before disclosure, before alternatives analysis, before permit-holder remedies, and before equivalent replacement capacity is funded and available.¹²

Protection requires evidence and process

Minnesota law takes burial-site protection seriously. Minn. Stat. § 307.08 states that human burials, remains, and burial grounds must be treated with equal respect for human dignity. The statute applies on public or private lands or waters and prohibits intentional disturbance of burial grounds or removal of human remains without appropriate authorization. The Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist explains that only the State Archaeologist can authenticate unrecorded burial grounds and that the office's duties include field work, review of development plans, and guidance to agencies and landowners.

That framework supports protection. It does not automatically answer the separate public-policy question of whether full decommissioning is necessary. Burial-site protection may require avoidance, fencing, protective posting, management restrictions, further field work, or other targeted measures. If MPRB believes full closure is the only lawful or culturally appropriate remedy, it should explain why less restrictive alternatives are insufficient.⁷⁸ Timeline of Events

“There are burial sites on the land.” How does MPRB know?

WCCO reported that Board President Tom Olsen did not share specifics, but said there are burial sites on the land. That is an extraordinary public claim. If true, MPRB should identify the non-confidential basis: Was a burial ground authenticated? Was it assessed? Was it recorded? Was it suspected? Who made the determination? What methods were used? What confidence level was assigned? What area is implicated? Minnesota law protects burial sites and protects sensitive burial-site location data, but it also defines a process involving the State Archaeologist, the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, qualified experts, condition assessments, plan review, and authentication. The public does not need confidential coordinates. The public does need to know whether MPRB is relying on a legally recognized burial-site determination, a suspected cemetery, oral-history claims, Traditional Cultural Place analysis, archaeological potential, or something else. A burial-site claim cannot remain simultaneously decisive enough to close a major public amenity and too vague to test. Learn more about the burial-site issue.

What the public record shows

MPRB's own public documents raise more questions than they answer.

A modified public management summary prepared by 106 Group for the Minnehaha Regional Park Dog Park Fencing Project describes the work as an archaeological literature review and desktop assessment. The summary says the fencing project was intended to demarcate the MPRB property boundary and prevent off-leash dogs from entering non-MPRB land near the dog park and Mni Owe Sni. It also states that the study area has "moderate to high potential" for intact significant archaeological resources. But it also says no systematic survey of the entire study area had been conducted and recommends Phase I archaeological field survey in areas subject to project-related ground disturbance before construction.

That matters. The public record currently shows sensitivity, potential, and the need for additional survey. It does not show a completed site-specific alternatives analysis, a public explanation of non-confidential management zones, a documented finding that full decommissioning is required, or a reasoned explanation of why fencing, boundary reduction, exclusion zones, leash-only shoreline corridors, seasonal restrictions, restoration areas, or additional survey would be inadequate.

A separate 106 Group memorandum explains that archaeological properties and Traditional Cultural Places are not the same thing. Archaeological sites are often evaluated by physical remains and research potential. Traditional Cultural Places may be significant because of ongoing cultural, religious, historical, and place-based associations. That distinction matters. If MPRB's basis is burial-site protection, the public should be told what non-confidential facts justify full closure rather than targeted protection. If the basis is broader Traditional Cultural Place incompatibility, MPRB should say so directly and release the non-confidential findings, recommendations, and alternatives analysis supporting that policy judgment.³⁴⁵ Learn more about the decision-makers.

The physical record contradicts a blanket closure rationale

The original government survey plat and twentieth-century aerial photographs raise a direct factual problem for MPRB’s closure theory. The earliest official land-survey documentation appears to show the Mississippi River occupying or cutting through much of the same area now treated as part of the disputed modern dog park footprint. Aerial photographs from the 1930s through 1970 show the same general river configuration, with major change only appearing after the Ford Dam era and subsequent twentieth-century river alteration. Today, roughly half of the modern off-leash area—including much of the southern, most-used riverbank—appears to sit on historical riverbed or recently formed land. That does not require anyone to dismiss broader cultural significance. It requires MPRB to explain how land that physical records show as river channel or recent riverbank became part of a blanket sacred-site, burial-site, archaeological, or Traditional Cultural Place closure rationale. MPRB’s own released report describes a literature review and desktop assessment, not a completed systematic field survey of the entire site. If MPRB has stronger evidence, it should release the non-confidential record. If it does not, full decommissioning is not supported by the public physical evidence. Learn more about the aerial and survey-map evidence.

River access cannot be treated as an afterthought

Minnehaha is not just another off-leash field. Its defining public value is access to the Mississippi River. MPRB previously represented that fencing would formalize boundaries while preserving access to "the river and part of the beach on Park Board property." Now MPRB is advancing full decommissioning without publicly identifying the legal boundary, the Ordinary High Water Level, the authority being asserted over the riverbank, the authority being asserted over water access, or the analysis explaining why managed river access is no longer possible. The public is not on trial here. MPRB is the agency proposing to remove access to a major public river corridor. Before it does so, it must disclose what it claims to control, what it claims it cannot allow, what changed from fencing to closure, and why targeted management cannot preserve river access while protecting sensitive areas. Learn more about the riverbank and water-access problem.

The process problem

Resolution 2026-114 would begin decommissioning before the scheduled Minnehaha Regional Park long-term plan update is completed. That reverses the normal planning sequence. The Board is being asked to remove a major regional amenity first and plan around the consequences later.

MPRB has acknowledged that the off-leash recreation area is well-used and that decommissioning warrants a planning process to identify additional off-leash opportunities. But the resolution does not require equivalent replacement capacity before access is lost. It does not require pro rata refunds, credits, fee adjustments, substitute access, or any permit-holder remedy. It does not require disclosure of the non-confidential factual basis for closure before implementation. It does not require a public hearing after the relevant records are released.

That is not meaningful engagement. Engagement after the closure decision has effectively been made is not engagement on necessity. It is engagement on implementation.⁶ Learn more about what the archaeological report does and does not support.

Our position

We support protection of burial sites, cultural resources, sacred places, and Mni Owe Sni. We also support lawful disclosure, public accountability, proportional remedies, and fair treatment of Minneapolis residents and off-leash permit holders.

Protection and transparency are not opposing values. MPRB can protect confidential cultural-resource information while still disclosing the non-confidential reasoning for a major public decision. It can respect Dakota cultural significance while still complying with public-records law, open-meeting requirements, planning obligations, and basic fairness to permit holders.

The appropriate remedy is not decommissioning first and explanation later. The appropriate remedy is disclosure, alternatives analysis, public engagement, permit-holder remedies, and funded equivalent replacement before public access is eliminated.¹

Sources

1. MPRB Resolution 2026-114
2. MPRB Minnehaha Off-Leash Dog Park page
3. MPRB Minnehaha Dog Park Perimeter Fencing page
4. 106 Group Modified Management Summary
5. 106 Group Traditional Cultural Place Memo
6. Mni Owe Sni Study Item Presentation
7. Minn. Stat. § 307.08
8. Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist, Burial Site Protections
9. Minn. Stat. § 103G.205
10. WCCO/CBS Minnesota, "Minneapolis mulls closing Minnehaha Off-Leash Dog Park after discovering it sits on sacred tribal land"