1. United States
2. Minn.
3. Letter

Thank you for your response regarding H.R. 4180, Canyon’s Law. I want to be direct: your reply restated agency talking points but did not answer the core question — whether you support banning M‑44 cyanide devices from public lands. Pointing to EPA authorization or Wildlife Services’ historical use does not address the fundamental issue. These devices are indiscriminate chemical weapons placed on land used by hunters, hikers, families, and pets. Their record is well‑documented: they kill non‑target wildlife, they kill companion animals, and they have injured people, including 14‑year‑old Canyon Mansfield, whose name is on this bill for a reason. Federal authorization has never made a dangerous practice acceptable. The question before Congress is whether these devices belong on public lands at all. Many states, land managers, and public‑safety advocates have already concluded they do not. Your letter avoided taking a position. As your constituent, I am asking for a clear answer: Do you support prohibiting M‑44 cyanide devices on public lands, or do you support their continued use? This is not a complicated policy question. It is a public‑safety question. These devices pose unacceptable risks to Minnesotans, to visitors, to pets, and to wildlife. H.R. 4180 would end that risk. I am asking you to take a stand — not simply “keep my thoughts in mind,” but state plainly whether you will support or oppose this bill. I look forward to your direct answer.