The bill prohibits preparing, placing, installing, or deploying an M-44 device on public land. It also requires removal of any existing M-44 devices on public land within 30 days after enactment, carried out by Federal, State, or county agencies.
The act then defines key terms to scope its reach, focusing on public land managed by federal agencies. This is a targeted action intended to reduce risk to humans and non-target wildlife while clarifying the legal framework for agencies that manage public lands.
At a Glance
What It Does
Prohibits the preparation, placement, and use of M-44 devices on public land and requires removal of existing devices within 30 days of enactment. It also provides definitions to clarify terms used in the ban.
Who It Affects
Public land managers (federal, state, and local agencies) and anyone active on public lands, including recreation users and wildlife managers.
Why It Matters
The prohibition aims to curb human exposure to cyanide and protect non-target wildlife, aligning management practices with public safety and conservation goals.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Canyon’s Law is a focused environmental and public-safety measure that targets the use of M-44 devices, also known as cyanide bombs, on lands managed for public use. The bill first establishes that these devices cannot be prepared, placed, installed, or deployed on public land.
It then requires the timely removal of any existing devices on those lands—within 30 days of enactment—by relevant federal, state, or county agencies. To ensure clarity and enforceability, the bill defines the M-44 device, what constitutes public land, and which agencies count as public land management authorities, naming the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and Forest Service as the agencies covered by the act.
Finally, the bill grounds the measure in findings about the toxicity of sodium cyanide, the device’s historical impacts on wildlife and people, and the documented instances of harm linked to M-44 devices. The broad aim is to reduce harm to people and wildlife while giving land managers a clear legal path to remove dangerous devices.
The measure is intentionally narrow, focusing on public lands rather than private property or non-governmental settings, and relies on agency action to implement removals and compliance. Lawyers and compliance officers will appreciate the tight scope and definitional clarity, as it translates into straightforward policy obligations for agencies.
The Five Things You Need to Know
M-44 device is defined as any device designed to propel sodium cyanide when triggered by an animal.
The prohibition applies specifically to public land managed by federal land management agencies.
Existing M-44 devices on public land must be removed within 30 days of enactment.
The bill names five public-land management agencies as covered by the prohibition: NPS, FWS, BLM, Reclamation, and Forest Service.
There are no explicit new penalties in the bill; enforcement relies on agency compliance and existing authorities.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This Act may be cited as Canyon’s Law. The title signals the act’s purpose and provides a formal reference for implementation and enforcement discussions.
Findings
The findings compile historical and toxicological context for sodium cyanide and M-44 devices, highlighting risks to humans, domestic animals, and various wildlife species. These findings establish the evidentiary basis for the ban and the public-health rationale behind restricting or removing such devices from public lands.
Prohibition on use of M-44 devices on public land
The section bars preparing, placing, installing, setting, deploying, or otherwise using an M-44 device on public land. It frames the ban as a preventive measure to reduce exposure risk for people and non-target wildlife on federally managed lands.
Removal of M-44 devices on public land
Within 30 days after enactment, any Federal, State, or county agency that has previously placed or deployed an M-44 device on public land must remove it. This creates a hard deadline for remediation and establishes agency responsibility for on-site removal and disposal.
Definitions
Defines M-44 device to include devices designed to propel sodium cyanide when triggered by an animal, including ejector or predator-control variants. It also defines public land and clarifies that public land management agencies include NPS, FWS, BLM, Reclamation, and the Forest Service, establishing the scope of the act.
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
- Public land recreationists (hikers, campers, and other visitors) benefit from reduced risk on lands they use.
- Wildlife and conservation groups gain protection for non-target species and endangered populations on public lands.
- Endangered species populations on public lands benefit from reduced exposure to cyanide devices.
- Public land management agencies (NPS, FWS, BLM, Reclamation, Forest Service) gain a clear mandate for removing devices and enforcing the prohibition.
- Local communities near public lands benefit from decreased risk of pesticide exposure and associated public-safety concerns.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal land management agencies incur removal and compliance costs and must enforce the prohibition.
- State and local agencies bear costs for cross-jurisdictional coordination and removal efforts.
- Contractors and vendors may be engaged to locate and safely dispose of legacy M-44 devices on public lands.
- Taxpayers indirectly fund removal, monitoring, and enforcement activities through agency budgets.
- Any transitional costs for recreation-related businesses near public lands may arise from changes in management practices and potential short-term operational adjustments.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing rapid protection of public health and wildlife with the practicalities and costs of removing a long-standing pest-control tool from large, diverse public lands, without introducing new enforcement burdens or gaps in coverage.
The bill relies on federal land management agencies to execute removal and enforcement actions, but it does not establish new penalties or a dedicated enforcement framework beyond existing authorities. This raises questions about funding, logistics, and capacity for rapid removal across all relevant public lands, especially in areas with extensive M-44 placements in the past.
The narrow focus on public lands leaves private property and non-public settings outside the bill’s reach, potentially creating enforcement gaps should M-44 devices appear there in the future. There is also a practical challenge in identifying and safely removing devices without disrupting ongoing land management or recreational activities.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.