EDITORIAL
Conservation groups and federal lawmakers are taking action to outlaw the utilization of “cyanide bombs” on public lands. The conflict highlights ethical and safety concerns regarding long-standing wildlife management practices.
The “cyanide bombs,” technically referred to as M-44 devices, are designed to kill wolves, delivering a lethal dose of sodium cyanide powder. However, they also indiscriminately kill any animal that disturbs the landmine-like device, posing serious safety risks to humans as well.
Page Contents
Can you believe it?
I was astounded to discover this wildlife “management” practice while reviewing legal actions involving public lands. I couldn’t believe that the federal land management agencies’ so-called “Wildlife Management” personnel carried out such an arcane, barbaric practice.
While several states have prohibited or restricted their use, the Bureau of Land Management stands out as the sole federal agency still employing these devices. Disturbingly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services continues to deploy the majority of M-44s, leading to the poisoning of approximately 6,000 animals in 2022 alone. Notably, Texas has emerged as the state with the highest utilization of these hazardous devices.
Tragic consequences
Numerous incidents illustrate the grave risks associated with cyanide bombs.
Canyon Mansfield, a 14-year-old Pocatello, Idaho, boy, accidentally set off an M-44 device in 2017 while walking with his dog, Kasey. The bomb launched a cloud of sodium cyanide into his left eye and killed Kasey, his golden retriever. The chemical, when ingested, can cause cardiac arrest and respiratory failure in humans, while animals suffer internal bleeding and seizures before death. Canyon survived but suffered symptoms from cyanide poisoning for weeks. This alarming event sparked a movement against these devices, culminating in the introduction of “Canyon’s Law,” H.R. 4951, in the U.S. House of Representatives. The legislation is aimed at banning the use of cyanide bombs on federal public lands.
“Cyanide traps are indiscriminate killers that can’t be used safely by anyone, anywhere,” said Collette Adkins, carnivore conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We’re fighting for a permanent nationwide ban, which is the only way to protect people, pets, and imperiled wildlife from this poison.”
Advocacy groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity, Predator Defense, and the Animal Welfare Institute have been at the forefront of this fight, actively supporting the prohibition of these devices. In addition to the proposed legislation, a petition has been diligently pursued, urging the U.S. Interior Department to enforce a comprehensive prohibition on the deployment of cyanide bombs across public lands. Furthermore, conservation groups have resorted to legal action by suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, demanding stringent restrictions on the use of cyanide traps and an in-depth analysis of their impact on endangered and threatened species. This legal pursuit further underscores the deep concern for both human safety and wildlife conservation in the collective push to eradicate these hazardous devices.
Use of M-44 cyanide devices on public lands is counterintuitive, stupid, and cruel
The introduction of federal legislation and the pursuit of legal action signify public sentiment that demands a more compassionate, sustainable, and ethically responsible treatment of wildlife. Perhaps the most striking aspect is that such measures and calls for action are even necessary. One can be forgiven for thinking that the U.S. Department of the Interior and the wildlife management agencies should have arrived at this obvious conclusion on their own.
States that use M-44 cyanide devices
The following states have been identified as using M-44 cyanide devices, also known as “cyanide bombs,” in wildlife management:
- Idaho: Though the use of M-44s in Idaho was halted indefinitely following several harmful incidents, they were historically used for wildlife management.
- Wyoming: Despite opposition and petitions against their use, M-44 devices are still used in Wyoming to protect livestock. There have been lawsuits and advocacy efforts to ban the devices due to their detrimental effects on pets and wildlife.
- Texas: The state has reported a significant number of animal deaths resulting from M-44 use, leading to calls for a ban.
- Colorado: There have been temporary halts in the use of M-44 devices in response to harmful incidents and lawsuits, but they have been used in the past.
It should be noted that M-44 devices are deployed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services across various states. Oregon has banned the use of M-44 devices.
##RVT1112b
FYI – areas where M-44s are deployed are, by law, clearly marked with signs warning that poison devices are in the area.
Obviously, the animals and people who have been injured or killed by the mines didn’t see the signs.
Continued, again. So what can we do to mediate the damage done by coyotes to livestock? Currently, cattle sell for about $1.77/pound, live weight. A rancher that loses a calf has potentially lost over $1,000 when sold at 600 pounds. Multiply that by three or four calves a week and the rancher is losing a lot of money. I could not sustain a loss of $3,000/week. Granted, no amount of money is worth the loss of a human life however, at some point, we must take some personal responsibility for our own safety and the safety of our pets. There are lots of dangerous things roaming our public wildlands – snakes, bears, coyotes, lions, ticks, even fleas carry bubonic plague. Be aware and be safe.
Continued. Are there other methods to control coyotes? Yes. Neck snares and leg hold traps can be used but they are more costly to maintain and use. Some states have outlawed the use of these methods by both government agencies and licensed trappers. Interestingly, coyote populations in those states have increased exponentially (have you seen the articles about coyote attacks on pets and humans?) since traps were banned. Bounties can be offered to hunters to kill coyotes, but even this method is under attack and has been outlawed in some states, not to mention the attacks on owning certain firearms themselves.
Thank you for your rational response.
City folk.I was a State game warden for thirty years and worked closely with ADC (Animal Damage Control – an arm of the Dept. of Agriculture) agents. These devices have been in use for decades for the expressed purpose of managing the coyote population, even before the reintroduction of wolves in the U.S. The mention of wolves in the article seems contrived to elicit an emotional response. M-44s are cost effective devices for the purpose of protecting livestock (sheep, cattle, horses, etc.) from predation by coyotes.
Your assumption that I’m a “city folk” is incorrect. I owned rural acreage for 25 years where I raised hundreds of sheep and goats. I’m also the granddaughter of a beef farmer and spent a lot of time watching coyotes in the pastures. Never did we have to employ M-44s to keep the livestock safe. I did research and ended up protecting the herds with much more humane methods which I will happily go into if you are interested. But let’s switch gears for a moment. As a state game warden, I’m sure you are very well aware that wildlife practices evolve as science teaches us better ways. For example, hunting with lead shot has been common for many generations. (Continued…)
However, we now know that when game is field dressed, tiny fragments of that lead shot can be left behind where birds of prey such as eagles can ingest it. Now hunters are being encouraged to switch to non-lead shot as a more human alternative. Likewise, using poison bombs in the past doesn’t mean the practice should be continued. It’s an unsafe practice with very unwanted side effects. The excuse, “that’s how my daddy did it and that’s how his daddy did it” is not ethical. Doing research and arriving at a better, more humane and safe solution is needed.
“Well said” to all your comments 😃!
We outlaw chemical warfare but allow THIS? I’m trying to think this thru………..
Apparently the M44 has a large cadre of supporters as well and we have not heard the whole story above. A quote from the CEO of NASDA and the article link follows. I have no position or stake in this…but the article smacked of one sided opinion without a countervailing one so I went looking. Make up your own minds.
“NASDA appreciates the EPA’s continued steps to prioritize public safety and support American ranchers, as M-44 is an essential tool for guarding our nation’s livestock. NASDA members hold highly the responsibility of ensuring the viability of American ranches, ….”
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-revised-interim-decision-m-44-predator-control-devices
The article was clearly labeled as “Editorial and Opinion.” The use of passive unattended lethal weapons on public lands is not a responsible means of “ensuring the viability of American ranches.”
The “Cluster Bomb” of wildlife management.
Put a bounty back on the wolves and send out the hunters. One round, one wolf and no dead dogs or kids.
Lots of handwringing and gnashing of teeth without a recommended alternative to solve the issue. There are a lot of things I would recommend banning just because I don’t like them, doesn’t mean my opinion should trump others. For those worried about their “pets”, be responsible and keep them on a leash as required, then there is no threat.
You must have written your comment without reading the others because alternative solutions were mentioned. Also, even leashed dogs could easily be victims of these devices. Just because a dog is on a leash does not mean it won’t take a piece of bait that is laying on the ground. And what about children who reach down to pick up and examine bait, only to find out it’s a deadly device. These are like having land mines in public places. Even if there is not a better solution, these devices are not safe to have on public land. We shouldn’t use these just because alternative solutions are not to your liking. Bottom line is they are unsafe and should not be used, alternative solution or not.
Thank you, Kristine. Have a great day. 😀 –Diane at RVtravel.com
Agree
Unbelievable
Yikes!! I had no idea such a product even existed. The dogs and I often hike in BLM land and national forests. Using indiscriminate killers like this is foolish and irresponsible in public lands. These bombs can’t tell whether they’re killing a kid, a pet dog or horse, or a wolf. If the wolf population needs culling, trap and sterilize, or use a responsible and humane method of euthanasia.
Agree
Thank you for bringing awareness to this. I had no idea. Crazy to think someone thought this was a good idea
Thank you for this informative article. I was not aware of cyanide bombs before, and as someone who walks their dogs in wildlife areas, I am horrified by the thought that these devices may be in use. I understand why ranchers don’t want wolves near their livestock (although I admit to siding with the wolves), but having lethal poison where members of the public and their pets can chance across it is not safe or even ethical. I question how anyone ever thought this is a reasonable tactic, and hope more light is shed on this practice. Although disturbing, I appreciate this article.