Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Northwest Angle 2 enclaves and map
Date: Apr 12, 2001 @ 01:00
Author: David Mark (David Mark <dmark@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Brian J. Butler wrote:
> Yes, I agree about being careful with jurisdiction vs. sovereignty. In fact
> I had been contemplating this issue myself. I just checked the USGS Beau
> Lake, ME topo sheet showing the Maine - New Brunswick - Quebec tri-point,
> which I visited last summer. This map has the labels "Maine" and "Quebec",
> as well as the corresponding county (or whatever MRC stand for in Canada)
> names overprinted on the lake along the boundary line.
>
> So, do you prefer to think of these junctions as state/province tri-points
> or do Canadian federal waters confound them?
>
> BJB
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Mark <dmark@...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 7:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Northwest Angle 2 enclaves and map
>
>
> > We need to be very careful not to confuse jurisdiction with sovereignty or
> > ownership. The Canadian government has "jurisdiction" and "sovereignty", I
> > believe, over all the land and inland waters of Canada, for certain
> > purposes. The Provinces are not enclaves within Canada, they are parts of
> > Canada!
> >
> > David
> >
> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 bjbutler@... wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>