--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Peter S
> It is a bit confusing that in the 1972 (not 1974, as I wrote earlier
> on) text there are two "lost children": the one with the article
> which belongs to France, and the one without the article
belonging to
> Canada. Turning point 4 is on the low water line of the
Canadian
> island.
right & interesting
tho i think we havent confused them
more below
> > but again the angles of the turns & the shapes & positions of
the
> > islets are such that it is almost inconceivable for there not to
be
> > at least a tiny land boundary on at least one if not both of
these
> > islets
>
> Yes, I think I agree. I was hesitant to say so, though, because
one
> island (the Canadian Enfant Perdu), having turning point 4 on
its low
> water line, is designated as being Canadian without any
further
> clarification. If Enfant Perdu is, however, cut by one or two
> boundary lines, it wouldn't be Canadian in its entirety. A bit
sloppy
> for a treaty text, in my humble opinion. I wonder whether there
were
> maps attached to this treaty that cancel this out (perhaps this
> Canadian chart that is mentioned).
>
> It is highly improbable that any points are marked. We'll just
have
> to wait until "something" happens on the "disputed" territories
and
> see which authorities will react... :-)
>
> Something else: the boundary is supposed to be between "the
> territorial waters of Canada and the zones submitted to the
fishery
> jurisdiction of France". Why is there no talk of territorial waters
> of France here? Is this because in 1972 France hadn't defined
its
> terr. waters around Saint Pierre & Miquelon yet? Or is there
another
> reason?
yes & yes
& i think youve put your finger on something else i previously
overlooked here too
the 1992 arbitral award of territorial waters & maritime zones
was still yet to come
so perhaps all that canada was willing to concede at this point
were the original 1763 fishing rights granted by england to
france
moreover since one cant fish on dry land or do anything else
maritime on it for that matter
i think the treaty may not have been so sloppy as you suppose
in designating both of the nicked islands as entirely canadian
for how could there be any land delimitation of a water boundary
& i may have been the sloppy one to imagine that there could be
also upon further review
the treaty even says the turn points are just off the islands rather
than upon the islands
& thus even the turn points themselves are totally wet even if just
barely so at low tide
& this would even explain the conundrum you wondered about
earlier
that islands were both considered & ignored as locational
factors in boundary delimitation
so i think i need to do another 180 about face regarding the
possibiliy of a dry cafr boundary
aka dougs dream
but i will be all the more fascinated now to learn how canadian
government mapping actually does handle this
& i am indeed revising my guess again now
namely that these specifically all wet cafr lines
even tho also specified as straight lines in the treaty
will actually only follow round the coastlines of these islets rather
than jumping straight over their dry land areas
but dont mind me
i am just very fond of trying & guessing