multibravos & multikudos doug
& a fantastic first multibirthday present for bp
more partying comments below
> 1. I passed this question on to Mr. David Gray, a maritime
boundary
> specialist with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and
he provided
> me with the following answer: "Throughout the 526 nautical
mile length
> of the boundary between Canada and France that surrounds
the French
> islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, theboundary touches the
low water
> mark of two islets that are Canadian; namely:
>
> Point 4 of the 1972 Agreement between Canada and France is
described as
> "The low water mark on the south-westernmost point of Enfant
Perdu
> (Canada)",Point 5 of the 1972 Agreement between Canada
and France is
> described as "The low water mark on the west point of the
> south-westernmost island of theLittle Green Island group".
>
> By being at the low water mark at the most South-westerly or
Westerly
> point of these islets, the boundary does not cross these islets.
There
> are no islets thatare in between any of the turning points of the
> boundary; therefore, nowhere does the boundary cross any
other islet".
>
>
> [So... do we consider this case closed??]
wonderful indeed that the ibc have delivered ottawa to you
rather than merely vice versa
as i had imagined
about the case
i am not sure what it was for you
but for me the question remains
& maybe david gray can answer it
how can he or anyone be sure that the lines touch dry land only
at the specified turnpoints & nowhere else on the 2 islets that
have been so touched
yes that may well have been the intention of the treaty makers
& we know the islands are completely canadian in any case
but lets remember
the turns enclose rather than bounce off of the islands
so how can he or anyone just assume
sight unseen
that these islands are of such a shape as to escape the lines
it seems to me
escapes by both islets from all 3 lines that kiss them at these 2
points is highly unlikely
just as a matter of geometry & the natural shapes of coasts
& it is precisely this unlikelihood which remains to be
demonstrated as a fact
in order to preclude all possibility that the maritime boundary
crosses any speck of dry land
for wasnt & isnt that still the outstanding question
so i would still like to see the best available map
which i believe may also be the treaty map
before considering the case closed
perhaps david gray has & could show us the treaty map
with or without the lines actually drawn in
but i think they were probably drawn in
really he may actually have a copy or know where one is
or perhaps craig already has the best available map
which he has previously mentioned
& perhaps it is the same map as the treaty map
onto which we ourselves could plot the points & add the lines
for it could be that simple too
but even if none of the above
i would still like to at least find & check the best available map
before calling the case closed
> 2. Yes, there is a monument #0 situated immediately to the
west of
> monument #1,at the high-water mark on the west shore of
Point Roberts.
> Monument No.0 was originally established in 1928 but was
re-constucted
> in 1977. It consists of a 2" X 2" X 8" monel post set in a
concrete
> base, 3 feet square and buried about 4 feet in the ground. The
sides of
> the post are engraved "CAN", "MON.0", "U.S." and "INT.BDRY."
>
>
> [ I will DEFINITELY have to get a shot of this! #0 is #1 and #1 is
#2.
> Shall I ask why #0 wasn't #1?]
only if the original monument 1 predates 1928
which i doubt
if the original monument 1 is older than the original monument 0
of course they wouldnt have changed the whole numbering
sequence
when a zero was so conveniently available to them for the
avoidance of all that work
normally when they add monuments they stick letters in
but dont change the existing numbers
like between older monuments 5 & 6 were added newer
monuments subsequently numbered 5a & 5b etc
i believe
> [ If only you could see the smile on my face!
actually i think i can all the way from here