when you have a specific bill or specific act covering a specific subject, that that controls, even though you have general legislation, unless you refer to it in some way by specific language, but that would not interfere with the Congress going ahead and amending either the general bill or the specific.

Mr. KEITH. Would the general bill need amendment in order to cover this situation? Is there not legislation on the books, or under consideration by the Senate at the moment, saying we, as the Congress, are in favor of protecting rare species wherever they may be found. Have we not recommended appropriations for so much money, and broad authority in land taking? Could you not, then, proceed without this legislation?

Mr. FINNEGAN. No, because there is nothing, in the general bill, sir, which refers to this act and says that that act is repealed or is modified by reason of this general legislation.

That is where the problem lies. You could conceivably put such language in the bill.

Mr. KEITH. Should there not be an escape clause in that general legislation with reference to adding to other rare species refuges that are in existence?

Mr. FINNEGAN. I am not sure, but I think this is the only instance where this is the case.

Maybe John Gottschalk can correct me.

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I know of no other.

Mr. FINNEGAN. I don't know of any other instance where we have this type of conflict.

Mr. LENNON. Is the gentleman saying that it is his judgment that the Key Deer Act of 1957 is the only existing special piece of legislation seeking to protect an endangered species by special act?

Mr. FINNEGAN. To the best of my knowledge, that is correct.

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I doubt if that is correct, Mr. Chairman. You can put it this way: It is the only one where we can foresee a need for expansion.

Mr. LENNON. Last year in the consideration of the legislation, H.R. 9424, this matter ought to have been called to the committee's attention so that it could have broadened the scope of that bill to take care of the developing sequences of events regarding other endangered species provided for by special legislation. There may come a time in spite of what you say that we may have to broaden the scope of some other particular single piece of legislation regarding some other so-called endangered species.

So many of us were under the impression when the endangeredspecies legislation was reported out of this committee last year-and you know that was the legislation sponsored by the then chairman of the committee, Mr. T. A. Thompson, and the Secretary made an appearance here, as I recall it, and testified for the bill-we thought we had sort of wrapped up this problem of endangered species, but it looks like they sort of got impaled on the horns of two dilemmas here this morning.

I am sorry. Go ahead.

Mr. KEITH. How would this refuge be managed and under the terms of what directive?

Mr. CAIN. The Bureau which manages all the wildlife refuges and game ranges breaks down to a regional system, and then has management on each individual refuge.

Mr. KEITH. Does it come under the directive establishing recreational and historic sites and conservation?

Mr. CAIN. No.

Mr. KEITH. There is no danger that this would be turned into recreation?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I would say that with the pressures on recreation in that area of the United States, this is sort of an ever-present danger, but one of the purposes of the establishment of national wildlife. refuges under the authorities which we have, and under this one, is to guarantee the preservation of the habitat that is needed for the particular animal that is being protected.

Therefore, we think we have in the key deer legislation as it was enacted, and as it is proposed to be amended, a bulwark that will prevent recreation from impairing the objectives which were established by the Congress in the enactment of these bills.

We know that the uncontrolled habitat in the keys is rapidly disappearing, due to the onrush of people who are vacationbound in that section.

The only way we can see to provide for the ultimate preservation of this species and some other animals that are related to this habitat type is through some kind of protection of the real estate, and that, of course, is the ultimate purpose of this bill.

Mr. KEITH. What I am driving at, as Dr. Cain knows, and as you probably know, is that we felt down on Cape Cod that the uncontrolled grabbing of land for recreational purposes was such that we were going to lose an area which should be conserved, and so we passed legislation. You sounded like Connie Wirth when he sold it to the people up there that we must conserve this against the inroads of recreationseeking people, and what did the Department do but classify it under recreational category. The problem concerned Senator Saltonstall and Senator Kennedy and me very much, because under the recreational category any use that is not specifically defined reverts to recreation. The people up there, as you know, are very much disturbed about this. Mr. CAIN. Mr. Keith, the situation is different, as I understand it, for the following reasons: The Cape Cod situation is under the administration of the Park Service, which has a different orientation in some regards, and does not have the restraints either of the legislation or of the administrative intent that the refuge system has.

It is very clear that this refuge is for the purpose of preserving this deer. It is also true that on an administrative basis in the judgment of the Bureau, recreation may be permitted.

Mr. KEITH. In the judgment of what Bureau?

Mr. CAIN. In the judgment of the administrators of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, who operate the refuge system, recreation may be permitted, but it cannot be the kind of recreation which is in any sense inimical to the purpose, which is in this case preservation of the key deer.

So that this is very, very much tighter than the situation in Cape Cod.

Mr. KEITH. What kind of personnel, and how many, would you have in this expanded operation? What would the operating costs be? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Mr. Chairman, I would have to give you the anticipated costs for the expanded refuge.

We have a manager and two ranger laborers on the refuge at the present time. The operational costs there are about $35,000 a year. The area was recently rebuilt with a new headquarters, and two residences, at a substantial capital outlay, but our operating costs Mr. KEITH. Two new residences for one man?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. One man, and the permanent second man, assistant.

Mr. KEITH. I thought you said there was only one man there, and there might be another.

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I beg your pardon. I was down there. I thought I remembered two residences, but there is only one residence there. Mr. KEITH. And an office?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Right.

Mr. KEITH. But the costs of operating that installation are $35,000 a year?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. That is approximately correct.

Mr. LINES. That would not materially change, because they presently patrol this same area.

Mr. KEITH. It just seems extraordinary to me. We have Monomoy up in my district of, I think, 2,000 or 3,000 acres, and you have just practically removed the man from there, and the cost was nowhere near that. It contributes greatly to the ecology of that area, as well as the flyway.

I don't understand the $35,000 a year cost, and I think it would be helpful when we get to the floor to know what that $35,000 figure is.

Mr. CAIN. Mr. Keith, this may help. We have, roughly speaking, 762 acres of acquired land in fee title, 71/10 of which were withdrawn from public domain, and in addition 5,337 acres now under lease, so that this one refuge man and his one assistant, these two actually are patrolling and protecting over 6,000 acres.

Mr. KEITH. I am interested in the $35,000 figure for operating costs. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. We will be glad to supply a breakdown of the annual budget for the Key Deer Refuge, which is what you are interested in, but the point that Dr. Cain makes is that the area involved is a substantial area in terms of total managed acreage.

Mr. KEITH. One of my associates, in fact two, have come up with the answer. It is probably the cost of paying for the leaseholders. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. No, this is a nominal figure. It would be more related, sir, to the overall cost of operation in a difficult environment. Most of this is patrolled by boat in salt water. I saw the equipment there. It is subject to corrosion. It costs a lot of money to get around by boat.

I would say that the expenses are relatively greater in this kind of a situation than in a lot of others that we have to operate in.

Mr. CAIN. We will provide the committee the details of this, if you would like.

(Information to be furnished follows:)

OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT COST-NATIONAL KEY DEER REFUGE Operation and maintenance funds available to the National Key Deer Refuge in fiscal year 1966 amounted to about $35,000 for this refuge and the operation and maintenance of the Great White Heron and Key West Refuges. The amount specifically for the National Key Deer Refuge is $20,000. Two full-time employees and one part-time employee are assigned to the three refuge complex with official duty time being spent on each of the three. A major portion of their time is required in the management of the National Key Deer Refuge.

The total acreage involved in the three refuges is 9,486. Expenses involved in operation and maintenance of the National Key Deer Refuge involve salary costs, purchase, operation and maintenance of boating and automotive equipment, posting refuge area, life history studies of Key Deer, patrol and protection of the deer, materials and supplies, shop equipment and expenses involved in connection with recreational use of the refuge. Boat operations are carried out in salt water which result in heavy maintenance costs.

Mr. KEITH. I have one other question. What is your policy with reference to inholdings?

Mr. CAIN. I think we should refer to this map, now, which will make it very much easier to answer the question.

The acquired land is green. The yellow is presently under lease. The red are the 1,800 acres that we were talking about acquiring.

Now, you will notice that this is already checkerboarded between leases and private nonleased or white areas on the map. You will notice that we plan to acquire only one tract in the center of Big Pine Key. That is a high-ground hammock. However, to the west and north we expect to acquire several small islands and tracts, shown in red that will be free of inholdings. Elsewhere, there will be a mixture of private and leased lands very much as at present. With the acquisition program completed as proposed, there will not be an inholding problem.

So the question of what do you do about private inholdings is almost academic. It will always be a considerable portion of the deer habitat that will remain in private hands, hopefully some of it under lease, but we could anticipate looking forward far enough in time that this will shrink back to what the Federal Government controls, and here and here only are where the key deer will be.

This is why we say that even with this program we recommend we cannot maintain the present 400 deer. It will be something less than this, but that would be enough to save the species.

Mr. KEITH. Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to get on the record in this respect is for the convenience of the people living there.

Up at Monomoy, a wildlife refuge in my district, a year ago last fall, as late as I believe January of 1965, they insisted that certain tenants leave their property, and then 3 or 4 months later they announced their decision to abandon the project in its entirety, after these cabins had been bulldozed at great personal displeasure.

I think it is important that as far as possible the policy with reference to inholdings be understood, and be a matter of record, because it is rather embarrassing to find a change in policy within at 3-month period, as we did in that instance.

That is all, Mr. Chairman,

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Reinecke.

Mr. REINECKE. Thank you.

Dr. Cain, do I understand that you are interested in acquiring 1,800 acres more than you presently either have in fee or under lease?

Mr. CAIN. That is correct.

Mr. REINECKE. You are talking about 8,500 acres total, roughly? Mr. CAIN. We have fee now to 834 acres. We wish to acquire fee to 1,800 additional acres, which brings it to about 2,634 acres.

Mr. REINECKE. In addition to the 6,700 that you intend to continue to lease?

Mr. CAIN. We would like to acquire some which we now lease. In addition, we would lease as much as we can.

Mr. REINECKE. How much do you intend to lease beyond the 2,500 acres?

Mr. CAIN. Well, currently we have 5,357 acres under lease, and it costs us almost nothing. Some of it is free lease, and some of it is a dollar a year, and as much as we could lease, we would lease.

We would like to keep the acreage up by this means, but we are not proposing the expenditure of this very large sum of money it would take to acquire 6,000 or 7,000 acres.

Mr. REINECKE. The cost of these leases, you say, is very nominal. What is the total lease cost of the total refuge at the present time? Mr. CAIN. I don't know.

Mr. LINES. About $10 or $12 a year. They are $1 leases, and some are free.

Mr. REINECKE. The total 5,000-some acres only costs $10 a year?
Mr. LINES. Yes.

Mr. REINECKE. I commend you on being good businessmen.
Are there any improvements being made under this $35,000 oper-
ating figure on the refuge itself, such as catch basins, et cetera ?
Mr. GOTTSCHALK. There is a little of that work taking place.
Mr. REINECKE. Are there plans for more?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. As we get over to some of these additional islands there will be more. This is one of the critical factors in maintaining a satisfactory habitat.

Mr. REINECKE. I wonder if possibly a little money spent in that regard would eliminate the necessity of trying to acquire so much additional land at this $1,000 figure.

Could the herd be protected and preserved on less land if we spend a little money on the land that we presently own to make their life a little more protected at that point?

Mr. CAIN. I think there are two main limitations to the maintenance of deer in a given number. Certainly fresh water or reasonably fresh water is requisite, and they have put in some water tanks, and we are going to put in some more, but the main limitation is on the browse, on the feed.

This is why we need the larger acreage. But the larger acreage using the browse up to a sustainable level would be enhanced by more fresh water. So we need the two together.

Just water alone, and small acreage, would not enable you to keep a lot of animals. You would have to import feed, and would not have a natural situation.

Mr. REINECKE. If those lease costs suddenly went up, thought I guess they would have to go up by several thousand percent to be significant, would you continue to lease?

Mr. CAIN. The testimony suggested the concept of long-term leasing. If we were to endeavor to take leases, say, for 50 years, then we