glad you are back arif
& thanx for thinking this thru with me
& yes i see jesper & peter just got back too
wonderful
obviously arguing interests us less than learning the truth
so let me just say the following is as far as i can see from here
& i wish we will have more & better info
no official canadian maps i have seen seriously indicate the allocation of
any territorial seas to any of the 10 provinces or 3 federal land
territories
http://www.canada.gc.ca/canadiana/lmap_e.html looks serious about depicting
such allocation between nunavut & nwt all the way to the north pole
but this map is such a fantastic & questionable witness
giving no indication of any other such allocations
& pressing flukier extraterritorial claims besides
that i dont trust it
but offer it to you rather as an example of the enormity of the problem
& of how what is likeable & easy to picture & even what canada itself
sometimes likes to picture may just not be right
better maps of nunavut are elusive tho
more believable to me yet still incomplete & inadequate is the map at
http://www.arctictravel.com/maps/nunamap.html
which distinguishes land territory from maritime areas
as do multimap & other zoomables i have seen
but there is a lot of other direct confirmation
from the nicholson bible & canadian laws & several topos etc
that there really is a single or unified federal maritime territory
actually i make it out to be one huge territory atlantic to arctic
plus 1 very big & 2 tiny pacific fragments
but i believe all 4 areas comprise one legal entity
http://npc.nunavut.ca/eng/nunavut/boundary.html is also illuminating of the
problem as well as the solution i think
because it distinguishes all the nunavut land territory per se from a
larger nunavut settlement area
which does have a maritime component
mapquest even picks up on the limits of this area i think
tho oddly only at level 5
& goes so far as to seem to indicate a wet nuonpq tripoint in james bay
very near where you were imagining your technical dive below
yet that is the same topological impossibility as you see at killinek
these nunavut settlement area boundaries seem to me to mark something more
like offshore economic zones than actual nunavut territory
as
http://www.nunavut.com/basicfacts/english/basicfacts_1territory.html
suggests
& i am just guessing but perhaps they are something like the new seabed
boundaries that doug recently alerted us to between nova scotia &
newfoundland
but since the above site also gives a clue that the situation with nunavut
may be unique & unmatched by any other territory or province
it could well be that nunavut actually represents the leading edge of
canadian thought & law
& perhaps we can also see here the source of the rumors about nunavut seas
& different maritime regimes in the different regions of canada
another particularly interesting & pertinent site i once saw explained that
if quebec seceded from canada
as an independent country it would automatically & immediately acquire by
international law vast territorial seas
of which it does not now have any at all by canadian law as a province
anyway i do think you have it right about the islands being claves
not only here but everywhere in maritime canada
& there is a very neat point you raise too
about the consequences of changing water levels
but i believe it might be settled the same as in international law
as peter smaardijk recently showed us about that japanese island
probably no unwieldiness or other practical consequences here yet tho because
i was recently amazed to read
none of these many nunavut hudson bay islands are permanently inhabited
but anyway again i would like to say after all this that i will stand by my
earlier guesses & totals
except that i myself have found 8 more potential tripoints in the meantime
hahahahah
owing to a possible interprovincial tongue of land around where you were
thinking of taking that dive
& also a potential second penetration of the alaska panhandle
in this case by a triple estuary at the mouth of the stikine river
both of which areas i am still investigating
& will give you a rest because this is admittedly hard stuff to take
& i will report again on them later
& thank you again for bearing with me
m
>
>Because it was tax season here, the computer was
>needed for tax preparation and I was thus lax at
>e-mailing or updating my page for the last month. It
>should most likely change.
>I want to put my two cents on the subject of Nunavut
>owning all of Hudson bay. Whatever the situation is,
>it is one of two improbable situations. So take a
>side on what you like. What we know is that all
>islands in Hudson, James and Ungava Bay belongs to
>Nunavut. Now if Michael is right, then all the island
>are enclaved in Canadian waters. Now that maybe
>technically correct, but have we thought of the
>consequences? Water level or silt buildup changes.
>What happens when a new island forms or an old island
>disappears. Does the enclave disappear only to maybe
>mystically reappear a few years later when water level
>changes again. Again that maybe technically correct,
>but I find that a little unwieldy. The other choice
>would be considering all water after the low tide
>level to be Nunavut. The problem there is that you
>could then technically dive from Ontario or Quebec
>land and land in Nunavut waters. Even weirder is the
>idea of a wet-dry tripoint existing near Killineq
>island. I know it is probably technically wrong, but
>I like the idea of picturing the whole area being
>Nunavut water. It is just so much easier to picture.
>Let the arguments begin.
> Arif