To put an aussie spin on this, I saw a new 1:250 000 map of an area along
the Great Aussie Bight in SA/WA, and a national park on the edge of the
nullabor is expanded into the sea as a whale sanctuary, the maritime
boundary paralleling the coast. Beyond that the sea was labelled
'commonwealth waters', which is very interesting, as maps haven't said that
before. ONly Jervis Bay has even shown a maritime boundary before.
BW

>From: "Brian J. Butler" <bjbutler@...>
>Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Northwest Angle 2 enclaves and map
>Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:17:54 -0400
>
>Unfortunately, the "federative" points thus produced are, to me, completely
>unsatisfying. And it appears they are unsatisfying to North American
>cartographers, regardless of nationality. In fact, I doubt that anyone has
>ever produced or seen an official or unofficial map showing Canadian
>provinces held together by federal Poli-Grip. So, for now at least, I'll
>stick with the locations shown on the maps.
>
>BJB
>----- 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/
> >
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com