A Democratic bill with 8 Democratic cosponsors · See all 9 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, titled "Canyon's Law," aims to prohibit the use of M-44 devices, which are commonly known as "cyanide bombs," on public lands. The legislation defines these devices as tools designed to propel sodium cyanide when triggered by an animal. Under this act, the preparation, placement, installation, setting, or deployment of these devices on public land would be forbidden. Furthermore, any Federal, State, or county agency that has deployed these devices must remove them from public land within 30 days of the act's enactment. The bill's scope includes any Federal land under the jurisdiction of agencies like the National Park Service or the Forest Service.
Yes· 3 of 11
- Scored +9
Would children be better off under this?
The bill directly addresses and prevents hazardous exposure to cyanide for children on public lands.
- Scored +9
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill protects ecosystems and endangered species by banning toxic cyanide devices on public lands.
- Scored +8
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
The bill improves the safety of public lands by mandating the removal of hazardous M-44 devices.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Would farmers be better off under this?
The bill removes a tool used for predator control, which may impact livestock protection methods.
- Scored -3
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Could impact traditional methods of predator control used in rural areas.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Reduction in accidental poisoning and injury: The bill addresses the risk of people being harmed by these devices, noting that at least 42 people have accidentally triggered a device causing exposure and injuries since 1984 (Section 2).
-
Prevention of death and permanent disability: By prohibiting these devices, the law aims to prevent fatal outcomes, such as the death of a man in 2018 who was permanently disabled by a device (Section 2).
-
Protection of children: The bill highlights past incidents where children were exposed to sodium cyanide through these devices, causing medical complications (Section 2).
-
Removal of hazardous substances from public land: The act requires agencies to remove existing devices from public land within 30 days of enactment (Section 3).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts for people are explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would children be better off under this? — The bill directly addresses and prevents hazardous exposure to cyanide for children on public lands. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Reduces risk of accidental injury from toxic devices in outdoor recreational areas. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Reduces the risk of accidental injury from lethal devices in public spaces. Would retired people be better off under this? — Increases safety for seniors utilizing public lands for recreation. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Reduces risk of accidental injury from toxic devices in outdoor recreational areas. Would students be better off under this? — Increases safety for students engaging in outdoor educational or recreational activities. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Reduces risk of accidental injury from toxic devices in outdoor recreational areas. Would farmers be better off under this? — The bill removes a tool used for predator control, which may impact livestock protection methods. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Could impact traditional methods of predator control used in rural areas.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill protects ecosystems and endangered species by banning toxic cyanide devices on public lands. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The bill improves the safety of public lands by mandating the removal of hazardous M-44 devices.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill enhances public safety by removing highly toxic cyanide devices from public spaces.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill uses federal authority to prohibit specific dangerous practices on all federal public lands.
- 6/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/5/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/26/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 7 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Angela AlsobrooksDemocrat · Maryland
Christopher CoonsDemocrat · Delaware
Martin HeinrichDemocrat · New Mexico
Andy KimDemocrat · New Jersey
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont
Adam SchiffDemocrat · California
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon
Sheldon WhitehouseDemocrat · Rhode Island