Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Northwest Angle 2 enclaves and map
Date: Apr 12, 2001 @ 04:59
Author: michael donner (michael donner <m@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
>
>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.