Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Northwest Angle 2 enclaves and map<br/>
Date: Apr 10, 2001 @ 17:28<br/>
Author: michael donner (michael donner &lt;m@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="2030.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="2034.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic2030.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="2032.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="2034.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1272236285">bus&ss indicates that the point adopted in 1925 for the new north limit of<br/>
the usa in the lake of the woods displaced it northward from swampland into<br/>
open water<br/>
<br/>
& nicholson 1979 says about the 1925 change<br/>
  as the international boundaries of canada are also coincident with its<br/>
provincial boundaries  except where they pass thru navigable waters  etc<br/>
provincial recognition by manitoba followed in 1928 as it had to<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
so it would appear that not only were the claves eliminated by the 1925<br/>
change but a  manitoba minnesota ontario  binational tripoint  was<br/>
eliminated as well<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt;<br/>
&gt;Northwest angle used to have several enclaves in its NW arm of Lake of the<br/>
&gt;Woods, that were removed  in 1925. A map of the issues is on p137 of Stephen<br/>
&gt;B. Jones, (1945), _Boundary-making a handbook for statesmen, treaty editors<br/>
&gt;and boundary commissioners_, Carnegie endowment for international peace,<br/>
&gt;division of international law, monograph No.8. Washington DC.<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt;As martin said , this has been republished recently.<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt;BW<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>still  trying to visualize what tripoints do remain now tho<br/>
  so excuse me if i ramble on<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
within canada it appears there must be a  crown manitoba ontario  tripoint<br/>
very close by<br/>
at the first landfall due north of the changed minnesota north point<br/>
<br/>
& i am glad at first to realize this because i have been trying to upgrade<br/>
my count of the canadian internal multipoints<br/>
having just broken thru last night on multimap to a fairly credible count<br/>
of 25 places where the prolific nunavut northwest territories boundary<br/>
touches the seacoast<br/>
  the great majority of these on victoria & mackenzie king islands btw<br/>
& so i have been scurrying all over the map of canada trying to complete<br/>
this try<br/>
which has appeared to involve only about another dozen points or so<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
but<br/>
oh<br/>
the try has actually just gotten blown to smithereens<br/>
because i realize i cant say what  navigable waters  actually are<br/>
  or  more to the point  what canada thinks they are<br/>
<br/>
i think they are probably any waters navigable by even the smallest craft<br/>
  given that the royal preemption of them dates to earliest times<br/>
& they very probably include lakes & rivers equally<br/>
& could easily include waters both above & below the first head of navigation<br/>
& at any stage of flow<br/>
<br/>
so the most liberal interpretation<br/>
  which now seems the most likely one<br/>
would add a pair of crown waters tripoints just about everywhere a stream<br/>
or pond crosses any provincial or territorial boundary<br/>
& this amounts easily to hundreds of additional primary federative tripoints<br/>
& a really unresolvable mess<br/>
  unless the canadian government publishes an official list or map of them<br/>
    which frankly i find hard to imagine<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
so my revised conclusion is that canada<br/>
which begins by having 0 zero triprovincial points<br/>
plus its obvious quartet of federative dry multipoints along the 60th parallel<br/>
& about 3 dozen somewhat less obvious coastal tripoints<br/>
trails off into a myriad of mostly obscure freshwater federative tripoints<br/>
& is therefore probably just not susceptible to the kind of exhaustive<br/>
finite analysis enjoyed by the usa & most other countries<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
& i realize now too that the same imponderability extends equally to the<br/>
caus binational tripoints<br/>
<br/>
we can easily point to the few all dry ones<br/>
  menhpq & the half dozen on the 49th parallel west of the red river<br/>
& a couple of unnavigable wet ones  i guess<br/>
  nhpqvt & akbcyt<br/>
but we will probably never be able to account for all the wet ones<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
& thus unexpectedly both canada & caus<br/>
for the same reason<br/>
must remain by & large terra incognita<br/>
<br/>
m</div>