Update: Following public outcry, the EPA has announced that it is reversing its decision to reauthorize the use of deadly M-44 “cyanide bombs” to kill wildlife. In a press release, the EPA said it would “reevaluate the use of M-44 devices to control wild animals that prey on livestock and other animals.” However, the agency has also stated that the reversal does not mean people are currently barred from using the devices. 

The Environmental Protection Agency announced earlier this month that it had reauthorized the use of “cyanide bombs” for killing predator wildlife. The controversial devices, officially called M-44s, are deployed by Wildlife Services, a program within the United States Department of Agriculture, to target predatory animals that prey on livestock. When triggered, the baited devices shoot a lethal capsule containing sodium cyanide into an animal’s mouth. 

According to the Department of Agriculture, M-44s killed over 6,000 animals last year, including several hundred animals that were unintentional victims. Coyotes and foxes made up the bulk of M-44 poisonings; however, possums, raccoons, kit foxes, swine, skunks, and a black bear were also unintentionally killed.

In August 2017, WildEarth Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit requesting a ban on the use of M-44 cyanide capsules. While the groups’ petition was denied, the lawsuit triggered a review of the M-44 program. The subsequent reauthorization decision, released earlier this month, allows for the continued use of M-44s on an interim basis, pending the results of a larger review of the devices’ impact on endangered species.  

A cyanide device in Pocatello, Idaho, in 2017. | Photo by Bannock County Sheriff's Office via AP

In a small victory for cyanide bomb opponents, the EPA’s reauthorization decision does include some new restrictions on the use of M-44s. For example, M-44s must be placed 100 feet from public roads and pathways, elevated warning signs must be placed within 15 feet of the devices, and people living within a half-mile radius of a device must be notified.

Collette Adkins, carnivore conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity, warns that the restrictions are not enough. “Nothing short of a complete ban is going to let people’s pets and rare wildlife be safe,” she said.   

Aside from the impact of M-44s on wildlife, a string of incidents involving M-44s and family pets has prompted concern that the devices pose an unreasonable risk to humans and their companion pets. In March 2017, a 14-year-old boy and his family dog exploded an M-44 while playing on a hillside behind their home, killing the dog and exposing the boy to cyanide. The wildlife advocacy group Predator Defense reports that the use of M-44s has resulted in nearly 50 dog deaths and over 10 human injuries since 1990.  

Earlier this year, when the EPA solicited public comments on the proposed M-44 reauthorization, it received over 20,000 comments opposing M-44 reauthorization and only 10 comments in favor of renewal, according to a Center for Biological Diversity analysis.  

Opponents of the devices argue that predator populations can be controlled through nonlethal alternatives, such as fencing, motion-sensing light and sound devices, and guard dogs. They also object to the inhumane killing of predator animals and the potential impact on endangered species. “This is very risky to endangered wildlife precisely because it is indiscriminate. Anything that pulls on the device will be killed,” Adkins said.

Some opponents also cite research suggesting lethal methods for reducing carnivore populations are often ineffective. A Wildlife Services study found that coyotes increase their litter size in response to human exploitation. “All these nonlethal methods, they are more effective because they actually prevent the conflict,” Adkins explained. “When you just kill one animal, that may or may not be the one that caused the problem. It is just a temporary fix because another animal is going to move into that territory.”  

But many ranchers are convinced that nonlethal alternatives are not enough to protect their financial interests; the Wyoming Wool Growers Association, the Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers Association, the Colorado Wool Growers Association, the Idaho Wool Growers Association, and the Montana Wool Growers Association have all registered their support for M-44 reauthorization with the EPA.

As far back as 2011, the EPA had begun an analysis on how sodium cyanide and compound 1080, two pesticides used in M-44s, impacted wildlife, but that effort stalled. In 2017, four conservation and animal-welfare groups filed a lawsuit to compel the EPA to finish that study, and in a settlement, the agency agreed to do so by 2021. 

The results of the 2021 study on M-44s may yet trigger changes to the EPA’s M-44 policy. Until then, Adkins says, the Center for Biological Diversity will continue fighting against cyanide bombs. “We are disappointed in the EPA’s decision to reauthorize M-44s, but we are going to keep the pressure on and also try to work toward state-level bans,” Adkins said.  

The center is seeing some success there. On August 8, the US District Court for the District of Wyoming temporarily banned the use of M-44s on federal lands in Wyoming. Meanwhile, however, federal legislation that would ban M-44s nationwide has stalled in the House and Senate.

This article has been updated since publication.