ahh
local informants wrong as usual
my own understanding or misunderstanding is
all the islands & even low tide projections of hudson bay are nunavut all right
but the waters are federal
federal maritime territory belonging to no province or federal land territory
nor is that a distinction without a difference i think
first because the 3 federal land territories & the 1 federal water
territory are 4 different things
but also because i am pretty sure that
any appearances to the contrary notwithstanding
it is actually all one & the same regime off all the coasts of canada
which is simply that islands get allocated
generally to the nearest province or territory
but nowhere necessarily to the nearest
after all the magdalen islands are quebec & not nb nor pei
yet both of the latter are nearer
the only exceptions to this regime i know of are killinek & the 4 nunw
islands in the high arctic
which all got allocated ok too but divided also
it may come as a delightful surprise to discover nunavut islands so far
south as southern james bay or even hannah bay
yes over 8 degrees south of southernmost continental nunavut
& also to discover that canada actually does enjoy an all wet but legal 4th
federal territory & thus a 14th federative entity
the birds might never buy that
but neither would you have to accept the idea that there are parts of
canada that are part of no province or territory
anyway its another idea
& maybe even one whose time has come
yet tell me
how did you &or the birds know you would have nunavut 20 years ago
m
also beaming to see you add the idea of mean low water
since i have been fussing over whether it has been legally established as
mean low or as lowest low or as what
seeing as the difference can matter enormously in tripoint determination
like at canbnss in the bay of fundy it could amount to kilometers
& i have a hunch you are right about this
so i wonder if you can say your source for it also
>
>When I was birding at Churchill, Manitoba, several times in the early
>1980s, the conventional wisdom among birders, including local professional
>guides, was that the waters of Hudson's Bay were all part of the Northwest
>Teritories, and I managed to see 28 species on or over the water. If I
>accept the idea that there are parts of Canada that are part of no
>Province or Territory, I will have to reduce my Nunavut life bird list
>from 28 to 0.
>
>I am certain that the situation is different along the Arctic and Hudson
>Bay coast than it is along the Pacific coast. Along Hudson's Bay, the
>Provinces definitely stop at the mean low water mark, and all the islands
>were part of the Northwest Territories now Nunavut. Whereas along the
>Pacific and Atlantic coasts, offshore islands belong to the adjacent
>Provinces.
>
>David
>
>On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, michael donner wrote:
>
>> great question david
>>
>> answer follows below
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, michael donner wrote:
>> >
>> >> but following the nicholson information previously culled
>> >> i would summarize the major domestic multipoints as follows
>> >>
>> >> 0 multiprovincial points
>> >> 4 mixed status multipoints all on the 60th parallel
>> >> 10 mixed status coastal federal waters multipoints well scattered
>> >> 26 multiterritorial coastal federal waters points all arctic
>> >>
>> >> 40 total legally real primary subdivisional multipoints
>> >
>> >Michael,
>> >At the northern end of Labrador lies Killinek Island. The eastern half of
>> >that island is part of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; the
>> >western half is now part of Nunavut. On the very nearby mainland, the
>> >eastern half of the peninsula is still part of the Province of
>> >Newfoundland and Labrador, but the western half is part of the Province of
>> >Quebec.
>> >
>> >If the ocean around there is not part of any province or territory then
>> >there must be two FEDOCcean-NF-NU points each side of the island an a
>> >FEDOCcean-NF-PQ on the mainland. But if the provinces extend over the
>> >ocean there would be one NF-NU-PQ point.
>> >
>> >How did you count those?
>> >
>> >David
>>
>> i counted them as 3 of the 10 mixed status coastal federal waters tripoints
>> because i have not found any evidence anywhere of any province or territory
>> extending offshore beyond the low tide line
>> & also because i have found specific statements indicating that both
>> nunavut territory & quebec province do not include offshore waters anywhere
>> & also because nicholson says any newfoundland territorial waters passed to
>> the control of the government of canada when nf joined in 1949
>> & indeed i believe not only these 3 but all 10 of the tripoints in this
>> category are probably legally fixed where the interprovincial or provincial
>> territorial boundaries meet the low tide line
>>
>> m
>>
>> incidentally the first & second photos at
>> <http://www.wright-photo.com/northlabradorcoast1.htm>
>>http://www.wright-photo.com/northlabradorcoast1.htm
>> may include the canfnun & canfpqn tripoints
>> at cape chidley & cape labrador respectively
>> tho i am not positive about these details
>>
>>
>> & the other 7 tripoints in this subclass of 10 are
>> canfpqs canbnsn canbnss canbpq caonpq cambon & cambnu
>> as you may have deduced
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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=176325.1379273.2966887.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=61
>6040/R=2/*http://store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?ydomains+merchant-ad:dmad/M=17632
>5.1379273.2966887.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=616040/R=3/987248382+http://do
>mains.yahoo.com/><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=176325.1379273.2966887.2/D=egroupmail/S=
>1700126166:N/A=616040/R=4/*http://store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?ydomains+merchan
>t-ad:dmad/M=176325.1379273.2966887.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=616040/R=5/98
>7248382+http://domains.yahoo.com/>www. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is
>subject to the <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Yahoo! Terms of
>Service.