Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consid…
This bill directs the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to rescind a Master Memorandum of Understanding (BLM–MOU–HQ230–2023–05) related to wildlife damage management.
It also allows the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to purchase, deploy, and train third parties on M–44 sodium cyanide ejector devices and the toxins sodium fluoroacetate ("1080").
Finally, it removes a requirement to provide congressional committees updates about the prior directive that prohibited purchase, deployment, or training on M–44 devices.
Narrow but polarizing; easier in a favorable House but substantial Senate and stakeholder opposition reduce odds absent compromise.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill specifies a narrow set of substantive actions (rescission of a specific MOU and removal of a prior prohibition and reporting requirement) with clear immediate directives to named officials, but it lacks contextual problem statement, funding information, procedural detail, safety safeguards, and oversight mechanisms that would commonly accompany a substantive policy change authorizing hazardous operations.
Animal welfare and environmental risk vs property and livestock protection
Animal welfare and environmental risk vs property and livestock protection
Likely to view the bill negatively because it reauthorizes lethal toxic devices and limits transparency.
They would emphasize animal welfare, risks to non-target species, and public safety concerns.
They would push for stricter safeguards or alternative non-lethal measures.
Mixed view: recognizes need to address wildlife conflicts but worries about safety, environmental harm, and transparency.
Sees potential for pragmatic use if accompanied by strict rules, monitoring, and limited deployment.
Would favor amendments or conditions to manage risks.
Likely to support the bill as restoring federal authority and practical tools for ranchers and land managers.
Views rescission of the MOU and prohibition as reducing federal overreach and helping property protection.
Concern about activist criticism but generally prioritizes operational effectiveness.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow but polarizing; easier in a favorable House but substantial Senate and stakeholder opposition reduce odds absent compromise.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Animal welfare and environmental risk vs property and livestock protection
Narrow but polarizing; easier in a favorable House but substantial Senate and stakeholder opposition reduce odds absent compromise.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill specifies a narrow set of substantive actions (rescission of a specific MOU and removal of a prior prohibition and reporting requirement) with clear immediate directi…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.