Canyon’s Law
- Bill Number
- H.R. 4180
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Public Lands and Natural Resources
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-06-26: Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Last Updated
- 2026-07-10T08:06:11Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
This bill, titled "Canyon's Law," aims to ban the use of M-44 devices—spring-loaded traps that release sodium cyanide poison to kill predators like coyotes—on federal public lands. It seeks to protect humans, pets, and wildlife from the device's indiscriminate and hazardous effects, based on documented incidents of accidental poisonings and harm to non-target species.
Key Provisions
- Short Title (Section 1): The Act is named "Canyon's Law."
- Findings (Section 2): Congress outlines evidence supporting the ban, including:
- Sodium cyanide's classification as a highly toxic pesticide (Category One under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA), causing severe health effects like respiratory failure and death.
- Past uses in multiple states (e.g., Colorado, Montana) and incidents harming children, family dogs (over 50 documented deaths since 1990), people (at least 42 exposures since 1984), and wildlife (e.g., eagles, wolves, bears).
- Low effectiveness (only 53% success rate on targets) and risks to endangered species, despite prior warnings from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
- Prohibition and Removal (Section 3):
- Bans preparing, placing, installing, setting, deploying, or using M-44 devices on public land.
- Requires federal, state, or county agencies to remove all existing devices from public land within 30 days of enactment.
- Defines key terms:
- M-44 device: Any trap designed to eject sodium cyanide when triggered by an animal (also known as M-44 ejector or predator control devices).
- Public land: Federal land managed by specified agencies.
- Public land management agency: Includes the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and Forest Service.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authorizes M-44 devices for nationwide use under FIFRA to control predators threatening livestock and poultry.
- This bill would override that authorization specifically on federal public lands by imposing a outright prohibition, shifting from regulated permission to a complete ban. It does not alter private land uses or non-federal applications but mandates immediate removal of devices on affected lands.
Potential Impacts
- Government Agencies: The listed federal agencies (e.g., Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service) would lose a tool for predator control, requiring alternative methods for managing wildlife threats to livestock. They must comply with the 30-day removal deadline, potentially increasing short-term administrative costs.
- Citizens: Reduces risks of accidental exposure for people recreating on public lands, hunters, and rural residents; prevents incidents like child poisonings or pet deaths, improving public safety and health.
- Wildlife and Environment: Protects non-target animals, including endangered species (e.g., California condor, grizzly bears), potentially aiding conservation efforts and biodiversity on federal lands.
- International Relations: No direct impacts mentioned; the bill focuses on domestic federal land management.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Land Management Agencies: Directly responsible for enforcement, removal, and adapting predator control strategies.
- Livestock and Poultry Producers: May face challenges in protecting herds from predators without M-44 devices on public grazing lands, potentially increasing economic losses or reliance on other methods.
- Environmental and Animal Welfare Groups: Likely to benefit from reduced harm to wildlife and pets, aligning with conservation goals.
- Public Users of Federal Lands: Including recreationists, families, and pet owners, who gain safer access without poisoning risks.
- State and Local Agencies: Involved in removal if they previously deployed devices on federal lands.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: The ban enforces a stricter standard than current EPA regulations under FIFRA, potentially leading to litigation from agricultural interests challenging the prohibition's scope or compensation for lost tools. It builds on existing wildlife protections (e.g., Endangered Species Act) by addressing ongoing risks to protected animals.
- Constitutional: Falls within Congress's authority to regulate federal lands under the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 3), allowing management for public welfare without infringing on states' rights for non-federal lands.
- Political: Highlights tensions between environmental protection and rural/agricultural needs; introduced by Democrats with a focus on safety, it was referred to the House Committees on Natural Resources and Agriculture, signaling bipartisan or cross-jurisdictional review. If enacted, it could set a precedent for phasing out other high-risk pesticides on public lands.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (14)
Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9], Rep. DelBene, Suzan K. [D-WA-1], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Min, Dave [D-CA-47], Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9], Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26], Rep. Frost, Maxwell [D-FL-10], Rep. Himes, James A. [D-CT-4], Rep. Suozzi, Thomas R. [D-NY-3], Rep. Levin, Mike [D-CA-49], Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18], Rep. Escobar, Veronica [D-TX-16], Rep. Whitesides, George [D-CA-27], Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8]
Recent Actions
- 2025-06-26: Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-06-26: Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-06-26: Introduced in House
- 2025-06-26: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Canyon’s Law — issued 2025-06-26 — PDF (5 pages)