sort of
it is evidently a contraction of nulla arbor
meaning no tree
m
>
>"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>
>> > > > >> > > > ><<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> h
>>ttp://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/
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > _________________________________________________________________________
>> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
>><http://www.hotmail.com> http://www.hotmail.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.