Interestingly, the official Canadian topo map (15'x 30', Berry Point)
covering the Northwest Angle clearly marks an Ontario-Minnesota
boundary running up the middle of the inlet. Indeed, the
words "Ontario" and "Minnesota" are overprinted on the lake!
BJB
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., michael donner <m@d...> wrote:
> thanx david
> this is quite helpful in several ways
> tho i think the wording you mention here from section 2 doesnt
narrow the
> definition of navigable waters at all
> but rather broadens it to include all artificially constructed
waterways
> just as well as all the naturally navigable waters that have been
reserved
> to the crown in canadian law since the first articles of
confederation in
> 1867
>
> section 14 also
> by saying vessel includes every description of ship or boat or
watercraft
> of any kind whatsoever etc
> is especially inclusive & suggestive of the most liberal possible
> definition of navigation & navigable waters
>
> & later sections reinforce these views further when they refer
sweepingly to
> 15 any navigable water over which parliament has jurisdiction &
> 18 any thing cast ashore or stranded or left on any public property
> belonging to her majesty in right of canada &
> 22 any water any part of which is navigable or that flows into any
> navigable water etc
>
> so all together it seems to me that the terms used in this law
really do
> provide a lot more support for the conclusion reached below
>
> m
>
>
> >
> >"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