Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Northwest Angle 2 enclaves and map
Date: Apr 12, 2001 @ 13:17
Author: Brian J. Butler ("Brian J. Butler" <bjbutler@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
----- Original Message -----
From: michael donner <m@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 12:59 AM
Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Northwest Angle 2 enclaves and map
> following are extracts from
> the boundaries of the canadian federation
> nicholson 1979
>
>
> pp2ff
>
> by sovereignty is meant the authority of the state to have control of or
> rule over the territory & persons & objects present there
>
> canada being a federal state has divided some aspects of sovereignty
> between the federal government & the provincial governments
>
> canada is made up of 10 provinces & 2 territories
> written before nunavut became the 3rd territory in 1999
> each with its own boundaries
> but not all of these boundaries separate areas with similar administrative
> functions
>
> some are true interprovincial boundaries
> such as the boundary between alberta & saskatchewan
>
> sometimes however a boundary separates a province from a territory
> or from canadian territorial waters
>
> as the last 2 are under the direct jurisdiction of the federal government
> such boundaries might be termed federal provincial
>
> tho provincial boundaries may coincide with international boundaries
> a provincial boundary can never be coextensive with a purely national
boundary
> because all navigable waters are under the control of the federal
government
>
>
> p74f
>
> officially canadian territorial waters means any water designated by any
> act of the parliament of canada or by the governor in council as the
> territorial waters of canada
> or any waters not so designated being within 3 marine miles of any of
the
> coasts bays creeks or harbors of canada
> & includes the inland waters of canada
>
>
> p84
>
> canadian waters means the territorial sea of canada
> & all internal waters of canada
>
> canadian fisheries waters means all waters in the fishing zones of canada
> all waters in the territorial sea of canada
> & all internal waters of canada
>
>
>
> so brian & david
> this is me max again now & not nicholson
> i think the great challenge for us who are accustomed only to the american
> federal system is to tear off our cultural blinders & realize that there
> might be an entirely different federal system at work up there in canada
> which the usgs & other american mapmakers are also predictably confused
about
> & which even official canadian mapping may occasionally obscure
>
> false previous impressions & future amazement could be the least of it
>
> for as we have seen
> canadian federal waters may confound americans
>
> but they do not confound tripoints
>
> rather they produce tripoints
>
> they produce domestic federative tripoints as real as our 2 district of
> columbia federative tripoints & our 18 maritime federative tripoints at
the
> 3 mile limit
>
> & on the caus line they produce what might be called interfederative
tripoints
> for lack of a better name
> meeting not only with several of the individual united states but also
> indisputably with united states federal waters at the 4 places where these
> also meet the 3 mile limits of alaska & washington & maine
>
> tho oddly all 4 of these places happen to fall in or near disputed areas
> & so may also be indeterminate just now albeit for a different reason
>
>
> but i think the real trick is in swallowing the news that canada
> thanxxx to its sovereignty & jurisdiction & ownership of its federal
waters
> may well possess incalculably more federative tripoints than the 83 we
> yanks enjoy
>
> m
>
>
> >
> >I personally don't think there are Federal waters inland in Canada. It is
> >my understanding that Provincial fishing regulations apply once one gets
> >upstream of the tidal zone, even on navigable waterways. But I know that
> >the federal government regulates environmental protection on salmon
> >spawning streams in british Columbia. There mighyt even be false
memories,
> >and may not really be relevant to the "BoundaryPoint" questions. But I
> >will be amazed to find out that Ontario, Manitoba, and Minnesota do not
> >meet at some point in Lake of the Woods. I have occasionally been amazed
> >before....
> >
> >David
> >
> >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>
> >> > > > ><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/> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> >><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> >><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=190462.1393721.2979173.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N
/A=55
> >1014/?http://www.debticated.com target="_top"> Your use of Yahoo!
> >Groups is subject to the <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Yahoo! Terms
> >of Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>