hahahah
try this brian
hahaha
david wow
enormous fun to learn all this about you
& no wonder i hold you & nicholson in the same high regard
but i gather you disagree with the excerpts from him i am basing my guess on
no matter
i still salute your guess
& wonder if the birds dont also have their view of it
but in any case it might be good to get 3 sheets to the wind out there
without life jackets just to test which views if any are correct
brian you are too goofy
m
>
>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>
>> > >> > > > ><<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/> <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/> <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/> <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>
>>http://rd.yahoo.com/M=190462.1393721.2979173.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N
>55
>> > >1014/?<http://www.debticated.com> http://www.debticated.com
>>target="_top"> Your use of Yahoo!
>> > >Groups is subject to the <<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Yahoo!
>Terms
>> > >of Service.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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
>1015/?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.