i have searched again for inland waters but
i can only offer again the 3 excerpts below
under pages 74 & 84
for the closest i believe nicholson ever comes to actually defining them
& dont these mentions following a description of what they are not make
it clear what they are
seemingly just all the fresh water in the country
i would venture to say
also there is no entry on inland or internal waters
in an otherwise well produced index
again i think because these are just self evident terms
hudson bay was declared to be territorial waters of canada in 1906
& i know what you mean about historic bays
but i dont recall any other mention of them than your own here as inland
waters per se
& it seems counterintuitive to me
m
>
>parts of the oceans and seas can be classified as "inland waters" in the
>sense that 3-mile and 12-mile limits do not apply. An example is Hudsons
>Bay, which does not have an isolated patch on international waters in the
>middle. Such "historical bays" are "classified as inland waters". Perhaps
>that is what Nicholson was writing about. Perhaps he was not including
>lakes and rivers in "inland waters". Michael, can you search Nicholson for
>an official definition of "inland waters"?
>
>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