I wonder if my disk will hold the anticipated reply.
BJB
----- Original Message -----
From: David Mark <dmark@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Northwest Angle 2 enclaves and map
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, michael donner wrote:
> > 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
>
> Speak for yourself! I am a Canadian, and for 3 years I was a colleague of
> Norman Nicholson as professors at the University of Western Ontario (me a
> young assistant professor, he a senior Full professor at the time. Not
> that makes me an expert on boundaries.
>
> I still find it very hard to believe that the Provinces totally dry, with
> holes in them for every inland water body or water course. The Province of
> Ontario regulates boaters, requiring life jackes and no drinking, etc.,
> could I get off if the OPP pull me over by pointing out that we aren't in
> Ontario? Do I have to remove from my Provincial bird lists all the
> waterfowl that I have seen only on or over the water but never on land?
> Amazing if true!!
>
> David
>
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, michael donner wrote:
>
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>