Bill Overview
Title: Canyon’s Law
Description: This bill prohibits the preparing, placing, installing, setting, deploying, or otherwise using an M-44 device on public land. An M-44 device is defined as a device designed to propel sodium cyanide when triggered by an animal, including any device that may be commonly known as an M-44 ejector device or an M-44 predator control device. No later than 30 days after the enactment of this bill, any federal, state, or county agency that has prepared, placed, installed, set, or deployed an M-44 device on public land shall remove each such device from such land.
Sponsors: Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by the prohibition of M-44 devices on public land which includes farmers, ranchers, conservationists, and public land users globally
Estimated Size: 330000000
- M-44 devices are used primarily for predator control on public lands, affecting farmers, ranchers, and livestock owners who rely on these devices to manage wildlife that threatens their livestock.
- Conservationists and environmental advocates are often concerned about the impact of M-44 devices on wildlife populations and view their removal as beneficial for biodiversity.
- Federal, state, and county wildlife services and agencies use M-44 devices as part of their predator control programs, so their operations and techniques will be impacted.
- Outdoor enthusiasts, hikers, and pet owners using public lands could be indirectly affected by the presence or removal of devices like the M-44 due to safety or environmental concerns.
Reasoning
- The target population primarily includes farmers, ranchers, and livestock owners who may rely on M-44 devices for predator control. Their well-being might decline slightly due to increased predator issues impacting their livelihoods.
- Conservationists and environmental advocates are likely to experience an increase in well-being due to the cessation of these devices harming wildlife populations.
- Federal, state, and county agencies might experience logistical challenges, impacting their operational effectiveness in predator management, potentially leading to mixed feelings about the policy.
- Outdoor enthusiasts and pet owners might feel safer and more positive about using public lands, which could lead to increased happiness.
- The policy budget will primarily go towards the removal and logistics involved in discontinuing the use of these devices, which might be sufficient given the relatively narrow focus but may not cover alternative wildlife management solutions extensively.
Simulated Interviews
cattle rancher (Montana)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the environmental concerns, but these devices protect my cattle from predators, which is crucial for my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
wildlife conservationist (California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a great step towards protecting our wildlife and biodiversity. Alternatives to lethal methods should be prioritized.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
state wildlife officer (Wyoming)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will complicate our predator control efforts and require significant adjustments to our current methods.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
outdoor enthusiast (Colorado)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel safer knowing that these dangerous devices are removed from places where I hike with my pets.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
livestock owner (Texas)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Removing these devices could lead to more losses and financial strain for my farm.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
retired engineer (Idaho)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm pleased with the removal of these devices; they are harmful to wildlife and unnecessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
federal wildlife service officer (New Mexico)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need to find alternative predator management strategies that are effective and safe.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
biologist (Oregon)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing the use of M-44 is a step towards more sustainable wildlife management practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
environmental scientist (Utah)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this help us move away from environmentally damaging practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
outdoorsman (Arizona)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Removing these devices makes the parks safer for both visitors and wildlife.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Key Considerations
- The environmental benefit versus the economic impact on ranchers needs careful balancing.
- Alternative non-lethal predator control measures could potentially mitigate some economic impacts.
- Public health and safety considerations due to risks associated with M-44 devices should also be factored into evaluating the policy's overall benefits.