Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Northwest Angle 2 enclaves and map
Date: Apr 11, 2001 @ 00:45
Author: michael donner (michael donner <m@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
>
>"Navigable waters" in Canada appear to be defined much more narrowly:
>
>Navigable Waters Protection Act:
>"navigable water" includes a canal and any other body of water created or
>altered as a result of the construction of any work."
><http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/N-22/76767.html>
>http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/N-22/76767.html
>
>David
>
>On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, michael donner wrote:
>
>> bus&ss indicates that the point adopted in 1925 for the new north limit of
>> the usa in the lake of the woods displaced it northward from swampland into
>> open water
>>
>> & nicholson 1979 says about the 1925 change
>> as the international boundaries of canada are also coincident with its
>> provincial boundaries except where they pass thru navigable waters etc
>> provincial recognition by manitoba followed in 1928 as it had to
>>
>>
>> so it would appear that not only were the claves eliminated by the 1925
>> change but a manitoba minnesota ontario binational tripoint was
>> eliminated as well
>>
>> >
>> >Northwest angle used to have several enclaves in its NW arm of Lake of the
>> >Woods, that were removed in 1925. A map of the issues is on p137 of
>>Stephen
>> >B. Jones, (1945), _Boundary-making a handbook for statesmen, treaty editors
>> >and boundary commissioners_, Carnegie endowment for international peace,
>> >division of international law, monograph No.8. Washington DC.
>> >
>> >As martin said , this has been republished recently.
>> >
>> >BW
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> still trying to visualize what tripoints do remain now tho
>> so excuse me if i ramble on
>>
>>
>> within canada it appears there must be a crown manitoba ontario tripoint
>> very close by
>> at the first landfall due north of the changed minnesota north point
>>
>> & i am glad at first to realize this because i have been trying to upgrade
>> my count of the canadian internal multipoints
>> having just broken thru last night on multimap to a fairly credible count
>> of 25 places where the prolific nunavut northwest territories boundary
>> touches the seacoast
>> the great majority of these on victoria & mackenzie king islands btw
>> & so i have been scurrying all over the map of canada trying to complete
>> this try
>> which has appeared to involve only about another dozen points or so
>>
>>
>> but
>> oh
>> the try has actually just gotten blown to smithereens
>> because i realize i cant say what navigable waters actually are
>> or more to the point what canada thinks they are
>>
>> i think they are probably any waters navigable by even the smallest craft
>> given that the royal preemption of them dates to earliest times
>> & they very probably include lakes & rivers equally
>> & could easily include waters both above & below the first head of
>>navigation
>> & at any stage of flow
>>
>> so the most liberal interpretation
>> which now seems the most likely one
>> would add a pair of crown waters tripoints just about everywhere a stream
>> or pond crosses any provincial or territorial boundary
>> & this amounts easily to hundreds of additional primary federative tripoints
>> & a really unresolvable mess
>> unless the canadian government publishes an official list or map of them
>> which frankly i find hard to imagine
>>
>>
>> so my revised conclusion is that canada
>> which begins by having 0 zero triprovincial points
>> plus its obvious quartet of federative dry multipoints along the 60th
>>parallel
>> & about 3 dozen somewhat less obvious coastal tripoints
>> trails off into a myriad of mostly obscure freshwater federative tripoints
>> & is therefore probably just not susceptible to the kind of exhaustive
>> finite analysis enjoyed by the usa & most other countries
>>
>>
>> & i realize now too that the same imponderability extends equally to the
>> caus binational tripoints
>>
>> we can easily point to the few all dry ones
>> menhpq & the half dozen on the 49th parallel west of the red river
>> & a couple of unnavigable wet ones i guess
>> nhpqvt & akbcyt
>> but we will probably never be able to account for all the wet ones
>>
>>
>> & thus unexpectedly both canada & caus
>> for the same reason
>> must remain by & large terra incognita
>>
>> m