DOCSLIB.ORG

A Historical and Legal Study of Sovereignty in the Canadian North : Terrestrial Sovereignty, 1870–1939

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Historical and Legal Study of Sovereignty in the Canadian North : Terrestrial Sovereignty, 1870–1939 University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository University of Calgary Press University of Calgary Press Open Access Books 2014 A historical and legal study of sovereignty in the Canadian north : terrestrial sovereignty, 1870–1939 Smith, Gordon W. University of Calgary Press "A historical and legal study of sovereignty in the Canadian north : terrestrial sovereignty, 1870–1939", Gordon W. Smith; edited by P. Whitney Lackenbauer. University of Calgary Press, Calgary, Alberta, 2014 http://hdl.handle.net/1880/50251 book http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 International Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca A HISTORICAL AND LEGAL STUDY OF SOVEREIGNTY IN THE CANADIAN NORTH: TERRESTRIAL SOVEREIGNTY, 1870–1939 By Gordon W. Smith, Edited by P. Whitney Lackenbauer ISBN 978-1-55238-774-0 THIS BOOK IS AN OPEN ACCESS E-BOOK. It is an electronic version of a book that can be purchased in physical form through any bookseller or on-line retailer, or from our distributors. Please support this open access publication by requesting that your university purchase a print copy of this book, or by purchasing a copy yourself. If you have any questions, please contact us at ucpress@ ucalgary.ca Cover Art: The artwork on the cover of this book is not open access and falls under traditional copyright provisions; it cannot be reproduced in any way without written permission of the artists and their agents. The cover can be displayed as a complete cover image for the purposes of publicizing this work, but the artwork cannot be extracted from the context of the cover of this specificwork without breaching the artist’s copyright. COPYRIGHT NOTICE: This open-access work is published under a Creative Commons licence. This means that you are free to copy, distribute, display or perform the work as long as you clearly attribute the work to its authors and publisher, that you do not use this work for any commercial gain in any form, and that you in no way alter, transform, or build on the work outside of its use in normal academic scholarship without our express permission. If you want to reuse or distribute the work, you must inform its new audience of the licence terms of this work. For more information, see details of the Creative Commons licence at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ UNDER THE CREATIVE UNDER THE CREATIVE COMMONS LICENCE YOU COMMONS LICENCE YOU MAY: MAY NOT: • read and store this document • gain financially from the work in any way; free of charge; • sell the work or seek monies in relation to the distribution • distribute it for personal use of the work; free of charge; • use the work in any commercial activity of any kind; • print sections of the work for • profit a third party indirectly via use or distribution of the work; personal use; • distribute in or through a commercial body (with the exception • read or perform parts of the of academic usage within educational institutions such as work in a context where no schools and universities); financial transactions take • reproduce, distribute, or store the cover image outside of its place. function as a cover of this work; • alter or build on the work outside of normal academic scholarship. Acknowledgement: We acknowledge the wording around open access used by Australian publisher, re.press, and thank them for giving us permission to adapt their wording to our policy http://www.re-press.org 5 71 The Alaska Boundary Disput e The Alaska boundary controversy had its origins in complications associated with the period of Russian dominion in Alaska. While explorers from western Europe were moving across the vast expanses of North America and up its Pacific coast towards the northwestern extremity of the continent, Russian adventurers were approaching the same region from the opposite direction, and they got there well in advance of their rivals. In 1639, only about sixty years after the Stroganovs and Yermak the Cossack started the great march from Muscovy eastward across Siberia, a small party under Andrei Kopilov is said to have reached the waters of the Pacific and founded the post of Okhotsk.1 The Cossack Simeon Dezhnev in 1648 sailed a vessel around the northeastern extremity of Siberia from the Kolyma River to south of the Anadyr, according to records discovered nearly one hundred years after the event is supposed to have taken place. He thus proved that Asia did not join North America in that region.2 There was desultory Russian activity around the Sea of Okhotsk and in Kamchatka Peninsula during the following years, but the next major advance came with the two great voyages of Vitus Bering. Acting on instructions given by Peter the Great just before his death in 1725, this Danish captain, with his lieutenant Alexei Chirkov, sailed from Kamchatka in 1728 and followed the Siberian coast through Bering Strait, reaching 67° 18' N latitude before turning back. In 1741, after years of delay, they set out from Kamchatka again. Although their two ships became separated, they both succeeded in reaching and cruising along the southern coast of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands, thus accomplishing the modern discovery of North America from the Asiatic side.3 After Bering’s second voyage, Russian explorers and traders sailed from Okhotsk and Kam- chatka to Alaskan waters in increasing numbers, and they gradually extended their activities along the Aleutian chain and to the mainland.4 Among the key events were the establishment of the first permanent Russian post at Three Saints Bay on Kodiak Island by Gregory Shelikhov in 1784, Gerassim Pribilov’s discovery of the Pribilov Islands in 1786, and Alexander Baranov’s establish- ment of a new headquarters, Mikhailovsk (later Novo Archangelsk), on the island of Sitka in 1799. The Russians were primarily interested in furs, especially those of the sea otter; in pursuit of this trade, they not only subdued the indigenous residents with much brutality but also fell into serious quarrels among themselves. They had also to withstand an increasing challenge from foreign rivals, notably British, Spanish, French, and American. In the latter part of the eighteenth century, Cook, Clarke, Portlock and Dixon, Meares, Vancouver, Pérez, Heceta, Quadra, Martinez, Haro, Fidal- go, Malaspina, Caamaño, La Pérouse, Marchand, and others were active in Alaskan waters and interested in the region.5 To eliminate inter- Fort Ross at Bodega Bay on the California necine strife among themselves, to combat the coast, this marking approximately the south- intrusions of foreign interlopers, and to main- ern limit of Russian enterprise in the region. tain better control and management of the Primarily to check the “secret and illicit traffic” fur trade, several leading Russian companies of foreigners, Emperor Alexander I issued a took the initiative and in 1798 consolidated sweeping ukase on 16 September 1821, which 72 into a single organization. On 8 July 1799, an purported to grant Russian subjects the exclu- imperial ukase issued by Emperor Paul I con- sive right to the “pursuits of commerce, whal- firmed the consolidation and granted the new ing, and fishery, and of all other industry on all organization the title “The Russian American islands, ports, and gulfs including the whole Company.” of the northwest coast of America, beginning The ukase bestowed upon the Russian from Behring’s Strait to the 51° of northern American Company a monopoly charter for latitude,” and also the Aleutian Islands and a period of twenty years over all enterprises, Kurile and other islands off the Siberian coast, including hunting, trading, settlement, and in- from Bering Strait to Urup Island in the Ku- dustry, on the coast of America north of 55° N riles at 45° 50'. The ukase also prohibited all latitude and the chain of islands extending foreign vessels from landing on all these coasts across the northern Pacific and southwards to and islands, and also from approaching them Japan. The company could make new discov- within one hundred “Italian miles,” on pain of eries not only north of 55° but south as well, confiscation.9 Nine days afterwards, the Tsar and it could claim and occupy the lands discov- issued a second charter to the Russian Amer- ered as Russian possessions if they were not al- ican Company, renewing the monopoly privil- ready the property of some other nation. It also eges it had been granted in 1799 for a further had judicial, military, and administrative au- period of twenty years. The area subject to the thority in these regions.6 As the British pointed monopoly would be governed by the ukase of out in the Fur Seals Arbitration, however, and 1821 rather than by that of 1799, and thus it as had been recognized in the United States at would extend down the Pacific coast of North an earlier time, the ukase was intended pri- America to 51° (i.e., the northern tip of Van- marily to regulate the activities of Russian sub- couver Island) rather than just to 55°.10 jects, rather than to interfere with the rights of Both the British and American govern- foreigners.7 ments protested strongly against these meas- The ukase did eliminate most of the quar- ures as quickly as possible after receiving of- reling among the Russian traders themselves, ficial notification of them. Although efforts to but it had little effect upon foreign traders coordinate their protests fell through because (mainly British and American) who came to of the evident conflict between their own Alaskan waters. As a result, officials of the Rus- claims, their separate negotiations soon caused sian American Company complained to their the Russian government to moderate its stand.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Alaska Boundary Dispute
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository University of Calgary Press University of Calgary Press Open Access Books 2014 A historical and legal study of sovereignty in the Canadian north : terrestrial sovereignty, 1870–1939 Smith, Gordon W. University of Calgary Press "A historical and legal study of sovereignty in the Canadian north : terrestrial sovereignty, 1870–1939", Gordon W. Smith; edited by P. Whitney Lackenbauer. University of Calgary Press, Calgary, Alberta, 2014 http://hdl.handle.net/1880/50251 book http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 International Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca A HISTORICAL AND LEGAL STUDY OF SOVEREIGNTY IN THE CANADIAN NORTH: TERRESTRIAL SOVEREIGNTY, 1870–1939 By Gordon W. Smith, Edited by P. Whitney Lackenbauer ISBN 978-1-55238-774-0 THIS BOOK IS AN OPEN ACCESS E-BOOK. It is an electronic version of a book that can be purchased in physical form through any bookseller or on-line retailer, or from our distributors. Please support this open access publication by requesting that your university purchase a print copy of this book, or by purchasing a copy yourself. If you have any questions, please contact us at ucpress@ ucalgary.ca Cover Art: The artwork on the cover of this book is not open access and falls under traditional copyright provisions; it cannot be reproduced in any way without written permission of the artists and their agents. The cover can be displayed as a complete cover image for the purposes of publicizing this work, but the artwork cannot be extracted from the context of the cover of this specificwork without breaching the artist’s copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission
    SALMON-TAGGING EXPERIMENTS IN ALASKA, 1924 AND 1925 1 .:I- By WILLIS H. RICH, Ph. D. Director, U. S. Biological Station, Seattle, Wash; .:I­ CONTENTS Page Introduction _ 109 Experiments in southeastern Alaska__hhu u __nn_h__u u u _ 116 Tagging record _ 116 Returns from experiments in Icy Strait__ n h_u u_..u u _ 119 Returns from experiments in Frederick Sound u huh _ 123 Returns from experiments in Chatham Strait; h u • _ 123 Returns from experiments in Sumner Strait, u_uuu .. u _ 128 Returns from experiments at Cape Muzon and Kaigani Point, ~ _ 135 Returns from experiments at Cape Chacon u n u h _ 137 Returns from experiments near Cape Fox and Duke Islandu _ 141 Variations in returns of tagged fish; h _u u n n h n __ h u_ 143 Conelusions _ 144 Experiments at Port Moller, 1925un__h_uu uu __ 145 INTRODUCTION The extensive salmon-tagging experiments conducted during 1922 and 1923 2 in the region of the Alaska Peninsula proved so productive of information, both of scientific interest and of practical application in the care of these fisheries, that it was considered desirable to undertake similar investigations in other districts; Accordingly, experiments were carried on in southeastern Alaska in 1924 and again in 1925. In 1925, also, at the request of one of the companies engaged in packing salmon in the Port Moller district, along the northern shore of the Alaska Penin­ sula, the work done there in 1922 was repeated. The results of these experiments form the basis for the following report.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Southeast Inside Commercial Sablefish Fishery and Survey Activities in Southeast Alaska, 2013
    Fishery Management Report No. 14-39 Southern Southeast Inside Commercial Sablefish Fishery and Survey Activities in Southeast Alaska, 2013 by Jennifer Stahl, Kamala Carroll, and Kristen Green October 2014 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Divisions of Sport Fish and Commercial Fisheries Symbols and Abbreviations The following symbols and abbreviations, and others approved for the Système International d'Unités (SI), are used without definition in the following reports by the Divisions of Sport Fish and of Commercial Fisheries: Fishery Manuscripts, Fishery Data Series Reports, Fishery Management Reports, and Special Publications. All others, including deviations from definitions listed below, are noted in the text at first mention, as well as in the titles or footnotes of tables, and in figure or figure captions. Weights and measures (metric) General Mathematics, statistics centimeter cm Alaska Administrative all standard mathematical deciliter dL Code AAC signs, symbols and gram g all commonly accepted abbreviations hectare ha abbreviations e.g., Mr., Mrs., alternate hypothesis HA kilogram kg AM, PM, etc. base of natural logarithm e kilometer km all commonly accepted catch per unit effort CPUE liter L professional titles e.g., Dr., Ph.D., coefficient of variation CV meter m R.N., etc. common test statistics (F, t, χ2, etc.) milliliter mL at @ confidence interval CI millimeter mm compass directions: correlation coefficient east E (multiple) R Weights and measures (English) north N correlation coefficient cubic feet per second ft3/s south S (simple) r foot ft west W covariance cov gallon gal copyright degree (angular ) ° inch in corporate suffixes: degrees of freedom df mile mi Company Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Hyder and Vicinity Southeastern Alaska
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Roy O. West, Secretary U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY George Otis Smith, Director Bulletin 807 GEOLOGY OF HYDER AND VICINITY SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA WITH A RECONNAISSANCE OF CHICKAMIN RIVER BY A. F. RUDDINGTON UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1&29 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS TJ.S.OOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 35 CENTS PER COPY CONTENTS Page Foreword, by Philip S. Smith._________________________ vn Introduction...____________________________________________________ 1 Field work_.._.___._.______..____...____. -_-__-. .. 1 Acknowledgments. _-_-________-_-___-___-__--_____-__-- -____-_ 2 History._________________________________________________________ 2 Bibliography ________-______ _____________._-__.-___-__--__--_--_-_ 3 Alaska.__-___-__---______-_-____-_-___--____-___-_-___-__-___ & British Columbia____-_____-___-___________-_-___--___.._____- 4 Geography_______________________________________-____--___-__--_ 4 Location and transportation facilities.___________________________ 4 Climate. __--______-______.____--__---____-_______--._--.--__- 5 Vegetation ___________________________________________________ 6 Water power._--___._____.________.______-_.._____-___.-_____ 7 Topography-___________--____-_-___--____.___-___-----__--_-- 7 General features of the relief----______-_---___-__------_-_-_ 7 Streams.._ _______________________________________________ 9 Glaciation.. _ __-_____-__--__--_____-__---_____-__--_----__ 10 Geology.... __----_-._ -._---_--__-.- _-_____-_____-___-_ 13 General features___-_-____-__-__-___-..____--___-_-____--__-._ 13 Hazelton group._....._.._>___-_-.__-______----_-----'_-__-..-- 17 General character.-----.-------.-------------------------- 17 Greenstone and associated rocks.._______.__.-.--__--_--_--_ 18 Graywacke-slate division.._________-_-__--_-_-----_--_----_ 19 Coast.Range intrusives__________-__-__--___-----------_-----_- 22 Texas Creek batholith and associated dikes..__--__.__-__-__-.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Southeast Alaska Pink Salmon Tagging Investigations, 1981. Southeast Alaska Stock Separation Research Project, Annual R
    SOUTHERN SOUTHEAST ALASKA PINK SALMON INVESTIGATIONS, 1981. Southeast Alaska Stock Separation Research Project Annual Report – 1982 By Steve H. Hoffman Regional Information Report1 1J92-20 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries Juneau, Alaska December 1992 1 The Regional Information Report Series was established in 1987 to provide an information access system for all unpublished divisional reports. These reports frequently serve diverse ad hoc informational purposes or archive basic uninterpreted data. To accommodate timely reporting of recently collected information, reports in this series undergo only limited internal review and may contain preliminary data; this information may be subsequently finalized and published in the formal literature. Consequently, these reports should not be cited without prior approval of the author or the Division of Commercial Fisheries. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................. LISTOFFIGURES ........................... LISTOFAPPENDICES ......................... ABSTRACT .............................. INTRODUCTION ............................ OBJECTIVES ............................. PREVIOUS TAGGING STUDIES ...................... METHODS ............................... TagsEmployed ........................ Tagging Operations ...................... TagRecovery ......................... DataAnalysis ......................... RESULTS ............................... Tagging ............................ Spawning Ground Tag Recovery ................. Commercial
    [Show full text]
  • Yellow-Cedar Decline in the North Coast Forest District of British Columbia
    United States Department of Agriculture Yellow-Cedar Decline in the Forest Service North Coast Forest District Pacific Northwest Research Station of British Columbia Research Note PNW-RN-549 Paul E. Hennon, David V. D’Amore, Stefan Zeglen, and October 2005 Mike Grainger1 Abstract The distribution of a forest decline of yellow-cedar (Callitropsis nootkatensis (D. Don) Örsted) has been documented in southeast Alaska, but its occurrence in British Columbia was previously unknown. We conducted an aerial survey in the Prince Rupert area in September 2004 to determine if yellow-cedar forests in the North Coast Forest District of British Columbia were experiencing a similar fate as in nearby Alaska. Numerous large areas of concentrated yellow-cedar mortality were found, extending the known distribution of the decline problem 150 km south of the Alaska–British Columbia border. The forests with the most concentrated tree death occurred at 300 to 400 m elevation, frequently on south aspects. The appearance of these forests including proximity to bogs; mixtures of dying, recently killed, and long-dead trees; and crown and bole symptoms of dying trees were all consistent with the phenomenon in southeast Alaska. Introduction 2 Yellow-cedar (Callitropsis nootkatensis (D. Don) Örsted) decline (fig. 1) extends over 200 000 ha in a broad band through southeast Alaska to the Alaska–British Columbia border along Portland Canal (fig. 2) (Wittwer 2004). The problem is specific to yellow-cedar and is characterized on the landscape as a progressive and intensifying process that results in fading trees with thin or offcolor crowns and numerous standing dead trees, some killed recently and others up to 100 1 Paul E.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission Seattlenwf V.45
    SALMON-TAGGING EXPERIMENTS IN ALASKA, 1927 AND 1928 1 ~ By WILLIS H. RICH, Ph. D., In charge, Pacific Coast Fishery Investigations FREDERICK G. MORTON, Warden, :Alaska Fisheries Service U. S. Bureau of Fisheries ~ CONTENTS Page l'age Introduction _ 1 Southeastern Alaska, 1927-Continued. Southeastern Alaska, 1927 _ 2 Cape Decision _ 15 Icy StraiL _ 4 Clarence Strait- _ 17 Chatham Strait- _ 7 Conclusions _ 18 Frederick Sound _ 10 Uganik Bay, 1927 _ 18 Stephens Passage _ 13 Nicholaski Spit, 1928 _ 21 Sumner Strait _ 13 INTRODUCTION The series of salmon-tagging experiments in Alaska, which was begun in 1922, was continued during the two years covered by this report. In 1927 a number of ex­ periments were conducted in southeastern Alaska and one in Uganik Bay, Kodiak Island. In 1928 an experiment was carried out at Nicholaski Spit on the Alaska Peninsula. The experiments in southeastern Alaska were designed to fill in some of the gaps in the information that had been secured from previous experiments in thig district. The other experiments were designed to settle specific questions that had arisen in connection with the administration of the fisheries. .\lthough many details of the salmon migrations yet remain to be discovered, it is our opinion that the general features are now well enough known so that there is little need to continue general tagging experiments of the nature of those performed in southeastern Alaska in 1924 to 1927. It is planned, therefore, to use the method of tagging in the future only in connection with specific problems, such as those at Uganik Bay and Nicholaski Spit, which are covered by this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Does Canada Have So Many Unresolved Maritime Boundary Disputes? –– Pourquoi Le Canada A-T-Il Autant De Différends Non Résolus Concernant Ses Frontières Maritimes?
    Why Does Canada Have So Many Unresolved Maritime Boundary Disputes? –– Pourquoi le Canada a-t-il autant de différends non résolus concernant ses frontières maritimes? michael byers and andreas Østhagen Abstract Résumé Canada has five unresolved maritime Le Canada a cinq frontières maritimes qui boundaries. This might seem like a high n’ont pas encore été délimitées. Ce nom- number, given that Canada has only three bre peut paraitre élevé étant donné que le neighbours: the United States, Denmark Canada n’a que trois voisins: les États-Unis, (Greenland), and France (St. Pierre and le Danemark (Groënland) et la France (St. Miquelon). This article explores why Pierre et Miquelon). Cet article cherche à Canada has so many unresolved maritime découvrir pourquoi le Canada a tant de boundaries. It does so through a compar- frontières maritimes irrésolues. Pour ce ison with Norway, which has settled all of faire, l’article se penche sur le cas de la its maritime boundaries, most notably in Norvège, qui a réussi à délimiter toutes ses the Barents Sea with Russia. This compar- frontières maritimes, y compris dans la mer ison illuminates some of the factors that de Barents avec la Russie. Cette comparai- motivate or impede maritime boundary son met en relief certains des facteurs qui negotiations. It turns out that the status favorisent ou entravent les négociations of each maritime boundary can only be pour la résolution de différends maritimes explained on the basis of its own unique frontaliers. Il s’avère que le statut des fron- geographic, historic, political, and legal tières maritimes ne peut s’expliquer qu’en context.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legal Culture of the Formative Period in Sherman Act Jurisprudence William P
    digitalcommons.nyls.edu Faculty Scholarship Articles & Chapters 1990 The Legal Culture of the Formative Period in Sherman Act Jurisprudence William P. LaPiana New York Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_articles_chapters Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Courts Commons, and the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation 35 New York Law School Law Review 827--855 (1990) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. THE LEGAL CULTURE OF THE FORMATIVE PERIOD IN SHERMAN ACT JURISPRUDENCE* WILLIAM P. LAPIANA** The history of the formative era of antitrust jurisprudence has become the subject of extensive scholarly inquiry. Starting with Robert Bork's attempt to attribute specific economic motives to those who enacted the law,' examinations of the course of events leading up to the creation of the rule of reason enunciated in Standard Oil Co. v. United States2 have unearthed relationships between contemporary economic and political theory and the drafting and enforcement of the Sherman Act.3 This article attempts to supplement these efforts by placing the language of the major Supreme Court opinions interpreting the Sherman Act in a context of thought about the nature of law. It is an attempt to begin to probe the legal culture of the period, but, of course, it is only an attempt. A full and complete picture of American legal culture at the turn of the century is yet to be written.
    [Show full text]
  • Portland Canal News ABOUT THIS DISTRICT
    provincial Library, Victoria, THE NEWS WILIflKE^EP TOU POSTED ON* THE SEND THIS COPY TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE YOUR FRD3ND WHO MINES—$5.00 THE VEAR. WANTS INFORMATION Portland Canal News ABOUT THIS DISTRICT. Davoted to the Interests of the Mining Districts ot Northwestern British Columbiia VOL. 8, NO. 8 STEWART, BRITISH COLUMBIA, FRIDAY, JULY 16, 1926 $5 THE YEAR—10c. the Copy NEW HOPE FOR ANOTHER VEIN I WM. H, LONGLEY DEVELOPING THE LEAD-ZINC ORE ON BIG MISSOURI Athletic dance tonight. Wm. Bunting left last Monday DIESJN HYDER RUTH &JRANCIS No mineral district in British R.G.Birch of the Bank of Mon­ night on a business trip to Rupert Reports of new discoveries on William H. Longley was found J. H. Nesbitt is developing hig Columbia is so vitally interested treal staff left for Rupert last Hugh B. McGuire, manager of the Big Missouri are coming with dead in his cabin in Hyder last Ruth and Francis group near the Saturday. the Alaska-Canadian Co., arrived in the reopening and successful a regularity that may be becom­ Saturday evening by Jack Fitz­ head of the south fork of Glacier from the south Saturday. operation of the Ladysmith smel­ ing monotonous to some readers; Mr^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and Mrs Stanley Alton o^f gerald, who had engaged him to creek, four miles beyond the Prem e An election to decide the ques­ ter on Vancouver island as the nevertheless another must be re- j ' -* 'eft this week for Craig, take supplies in to the Titan Dunwell mine. The work now Alaska on a tion as to incorporating a local Portland Canal district.
    [Show full text]
  • The Boundary Reefs: Glass Sponge (Porifera: Hexactinellidae) Reefs on the International Border Between Canada and the United States
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-264 The Boundary Reefs: Glass Sponge (Porifera: Hexactinellidae) Reefs on the International Border Between Canada and the United States by R. P. Stone, K. W. Conway, D. J. Csepp, J. V. Barrie U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Fisheries Science Center January 2014 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS The National Marine Fisheries Service's Alaska Fisheries Science Center uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum series to issue informal scientific and technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible. Documents within this series reflect sound professional work and may be referenced in the formal scientific and technical literature. The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Alaska Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFS-F/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest Fisheries Center. The NMFS-NWFSC series is currently used by the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. This document should be cited as follows: Stone, R. P., K. W. Conway, D. J. Csepp, and J. V. Barrie. 2013. The boundary reefs: glass sponge (Porifera: Hexactinellida) reefs on the international border between Canada and the United States. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-264, 31 p. Document available: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-264.pdf Reference in this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-264 The Boundary Reefs: Glass Sponge (Porifera: Hexactinellidae) Reefs on the International Border Between Canada and the United States by R.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Environmental Knowledge of the Stewart Estuary
    STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE STEWART ESTUARY by T.R. CLEUGH Memorandum Report Habitat Protection Division Fisheries and Oceans November 1979 TABLE OF C-ONTENTS INTRODUCTION . " GEOGRAPHY . " . CLIMATE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • 3 GEOLOGY . 5 LAND USE • • . • . • . ' 5 HYDROLOGY OF BEAR RIVER ' . 8 SALMON ESCAPEMENT . " . 8 1979 STUDIES •• • • • • l 0 Methods ..... • • • • • • 10 Results • • • 0 • • 0 • • • • 13 DISCUSSION • Cl • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 21 REFERENCES . • . ~ . • • . 23 ( i i ) \\ LIST OF TABLES Table Bear River above Bitter Creek - Monthly and annual mean discharges in \\ cfs for 1967 - 1976 ••..••.•• • • • • 0 9 2 Macrofauna detected in benthic samples from Stewart, B. C. .•...•.•• 14 3 Meiofauna detected in benthic samples from Stewart, B.C. • ••••••.• 15 4 Species of fish caught including times and site numbers •.•.••.••.• 19 5 Salinities and temperatures, Upper Bear River Estuary . 20 . LIST OF PLATES Plate Upper eastern ~stuary, Stewart, B.C., 28 May 1975 ... · • · • • · • . 24 . ' (iv) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS R. Russell ahd B. Lawley assisted with the sample collections, and B. Raymond identified the benthic samples. W. Field drafted the figures and T. Collins typed and proofread this memo report. J, Morrison provided critical comments • • . ' i\ INTRODUCTION A Master Plan Study for the Port of Stewart was prepared in 1978 for the .British Columbia Harbours Board. The purpose was to provide cognizant guidelines for a co-ordinated development plan. The study was to provide a ready reference of information to partie~ Interested in developing port facilities. Included in this plan was an environmental overview of the estuary. and area. On reviewing the environmental aspects of this document there were several biological statements for which no quantitative or qualitative information was presented.
    [Show full text]