"nul arbor" means no trees in ungrammatical Latin, right?
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Brian J. Butler wrote:
> And for fifty thousand dollars, a nullabor is which of the following:
>
> 1. A boring story about nothing
> 2. An infinitesimally small drill bit
> 3. A salt-water billabong
> 4. A palindrome for the famous Arabic comedy star Rob Al Lun.
>
> BJB
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brendan Whyte <brwhyte@...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 7:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Northwest Angle 2 enclaves and map
>
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
>
>
>