Canyon's Law would ban the preparation, placement, and use of M-44 devices—sodium cyanide ejector devices—on public lands. It requires federal, state, and county agencies to remove any such devices within 30 days of enactment.
The bill also defines the devices and the lands they may affect, and it identifies the public land management agencies responsible for enforcement. The findings in the bill emphasize the health and environmental hazards of cyanide and the harm caused to non-target wildlife and individuals, underscoring the need for a clear federal restriction on public-land use.
At a Glance
What It Does
Prohibits preparing, placing, installing, setting, deploying, or using an M-44 device on public land. Requires removal of any M-44 device on public land within 30 days after enactment. Provides definitions for M-44 devices, public land, and public land management agencies.
Who It Affects
Federal, state, and county agencies that have deployed M-44 devices on public land, along with the personnel responsible for managing and removing those devices. Agencies involved include National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Forest Service.
Why It Matters
The measure addresses documented health and environmental hazards associated with M-44 devices, reducing exposure risk for people and non-target wildlife on lands managed by the federal government.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Canyon's Law introduces a clear policy shift for lands managed by the federal government. It explicitly bans any activity to prepare, place, install, set, deploy, or otherwise use M-44 devices, also known as cyanide bombs, on public land.
The bill assigns a concrete removal deadline: within 30 days after enactment, any federal, state, or county agency that has previously deployed an M-44 device must remove it from public land. To ensure there is no ambiguity, the bill provides definitions for the M-44 device, for what counts as public land, and for which agencies are considered public land management authorities (including the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Forest Service).
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill prohibits preparing, placing, installing, setting, deploying, or using an M-44 device on public land.
Any M-44 device on public land must be removed within 30 days of enactment.
M-44 device is defined as any device designed to propel sodium cyanide when triggered by an animal, including common names like 'M-44 ejector device' or 'M-44 predator control device'.
Public land is defined as land under Federal jurisdiction managed by specific public land management agencies (NPS, FWS, BLM, BOR, Forest Service).
There are no explicit penalties or enforcement mechanisms laid out in the bill's text.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title Canyon's Law
This section provides the act's formal citation as Canyon's Law. It establishes the bill’s title for reference in statutes and subsequent legal use.
Findings
Section 2 presents a series of findings about the hazards of sodium cyanide and the M-44 devices. It notes the lethal and sublethal risks to people, domestic animals, and non-target wildlife, cites EPA classifications, and documents historical usage and incidents to justify a public-land prohibition.
Use of M-44 devices on public land prohibited
This section imposes a general prohibition on preparing, placing, installing, setting, deploying, or using an M-44 device on public land. It also requires removal of any such device within 30 days after enactment by any federal, state, or county agency that previously deployed them. Finally, it supplies definitions for M-44 device, public land, and public land management agency (including NPS, USFWS, BLM, BOR, and the Forest Service).
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
- Federal land management agencies (National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service) benefit from reduced exposure risk and potential liability on public lands.
- Livestock producers operating near public lands benefit through reduced risk of cyanide exposure to livestock and associated management complications.
- Wildlife conservation groups gain from fewer non-target deaths and better protection for species on federal lands.
- Public health and safety agencies benefit from decreased cyanide exposure risk on public lands.
Who Bears the Cost
- Public land management agencies that must locate, remove, and properly dispose of existing M-44 devices on federal lands.
- State and local agencies that deployed M-44 devices and would incur removal costs and compliance efforts.
- Taxpayers may bear costs associated with increased removal and disposal activities and potential shifting of predator-control responsibilities.
- Livestock owners and ranchers who previously relied on M-44 devices for predator control may incur higher costs to implement alternative protection and predator-management strategies.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing the imperative to protect people and non-target wildlife from a dangerous toxin against the practical need to manage predators that threaten livestock and ecosystem health on public lands. The bill resolves part of this tension by banning the devices, but it introduces implementation challenges and cost considerations without detailing replacement tools or funding.
The bill acknowledges substantial policy tensions between protecting human health and wildlife on public lands and the practical realities of predator management on these lands. Prohibiting M-44 devices solves one risk by removing a hazardous tool, but it raises questions about alternative predator-control options, funding for removal efforts, and the management of livestock predation in areas where public lands intersect with grazing.
The absence of explicit penalties or enforcement mechanisms in the text also invites consideration of how compliance will be monitored and enforced across federal, state, and local jurisdictions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.