The Restore M–44 Act directs the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to rescind a Master Memorandum of Understanding related to wildlife damage management. It also authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase, deploy, and train third parties to use M–44 sodium cyanide ejector devices, including components and 1080 compound, and not require updates to congressional committees on implementation of the prohibitions addressed in the 2024 appropriations explanatory statement.
This is a policy shift aimed at expanding how wildlife damage is managed, but it raises questions about oversight, safety, and potential costs to federal programs.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill reverses a 2023 interagency agreement on wildlife damage management and clears a path for USDA to engage third parties to operate M–44 devices. It also removes the requirement to report back to Congress on the use of these devices under the 2024 appropriations context.
Who It Affects
Federal wildlife-management programs (DOI and USDA), private contractors offering wildlife-damage services, and landowners who rely on rapid predator-control options.
Why It Matters
It signals a shift toward broader use of M–44 technology and private provisioning of services, potentially changing oversight, training burdens, and risk management across federal wildlife programs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Two changes drive the bill’s practical effect. First, the agreement that guided wildlife damage management between the Interior Department and the Agriculture Department—an agreement signed in 2023—is canceled, removing a formal interagency framework for that program.
Second, the Agriculture Secretary is empowered to purchase M–44 sodium cyanide ejector devices and to deploy and train private third parties to operate them, including components and the cyanide compound often referred to as compound 1080. The bill does not, by itself, create new funding; it relies on existing authorities and budget lines to implement these activities.
Finally, the bill says Congress does not need to receive updates on how these directives are carried out, reducing one layer of ongoing oversight.
Practically, this means the USDA could work with private contractors to deploy M–44 devices in wildlife damage scenarios and could bypass certain reporting requirements that previously kept Congress informed about implementation. The devices implicated, M–44 ejectors, use sodium cyanide and are part of controversial wildlife-management tools.
Training, vetting of contractors, and interagency coordination would become more centralized under the agriculture secretary’s authority, while the interior department’s role would be limited to the rescission of the MOU and any related administrative coordination.Professionals evaluating the bill should consider how this shift affects risk management, environmental safeguards, and the balance between rapid response to wildlife damage and potential impacts on non-target species, pets, and vulnerable ecosystems. The measure also implies a heavier reliance on private contractors for a government function historically managed through interagency cooperation and public reporting.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill rescinds the 2023 Master Memorandum of Understanding related to wildlife damage management between DOI and USDA.
Section 3 authorizes the Agriculture Secretary to purchase, deploy, and train third parties to use M–44 sodium cyanide ejector devices (including 1080).
The bill allows this activity without requiring updates to congressional committees on implementation.
It references the explanatory statement tied to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118–42).
No new funding is explicitly created in this bill; it relies on existing appropriations and authorities.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Defines the act as the “Restore M–44 Act.” It sets the official name by which the bill can be cited and does not itself modify policy beyond naming the measure.
Rescission of MOU
Directs the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to jointly rescind the Master Memorandum of Understanding numbered BLM–MOU–HQ230–2023–05, related to wildlife damage management. The MOU, signed November 15, 2023, would have no force or effect after enactment, removing that interagency framework from future operations.
Rescission of Prohibition
Notwithstanding the 2024 appropriations explanatory statement, the Secretary of Agriculture may purchase, deploy, and train third parties on the use of M–44 devices (sodium cyanide ejectors and related components, including 1080). The Secretary is not required to provide congressional committees with updates on the implementation of this directive prohibiting third-party use under the explanatory statement.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- USDA APHIS Wildlife Services and other USDA/DOI wildlife-management staff, who gain a broader operational framework for deploying M–44 devices.
- Private wildlife-damage management contractors, who gain a new or expanded market for providing M–44 deployment services and training.
- Ranchers and landowners in predator- or damage-prone areas who may benefit from faster or more readily available control options.
- State and local wildlife agencies that participate in or coordinate with federal wildlife-damage programs, potentially gaining streamlined procedures through the Agriculture Department.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies (DOI and USDA) incur costs for purchasing devices, training, and potential contractor engagement.
- Taxpayers bear the fiscal impact of procurement and training under federal programs.
- Contractors face costs for equipment, training, and liability management associated with operating dangerous devices.
- Oversight and compliance costs may rise for agencies to ensure safety, reporting, and environmental safeguards that accompany expanded deployment.
- Potential environmental monitoring or mitigation costs if non-target species are affected by M–44 use.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether expanding third-party use of a controversial tool to address wildlife damage justifies the potential safety, environmental, and oversight costs, balancing rapid response capabilities against long-term risk and accountability.
The bill shifts how wildlife damage management is governed by canceling an interagency agreement and authorizing broader use of M–44 devices through private contractors. That raises legitimate questions about safety, environmental safeguards, and accountability, especially given the use of sodium cyanide ejectors.
It also reduces congressional reporting requirements on this policy area, which could limit legislative visibility into how the devices are deployed and what safeguards are in place. The net effect is a trade-off between faster, more scalable wildlife control capabilities and greater operational risk and reduced oversight.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.