Talk:Dixon Entrance

Straits of Alaska?

Sorry to quibble, but the terms of the Alaska Boundary Treaty are very clear even if the Alaska and US governments try to pretend otherwise; the entirety of the waters of the Dixon Entrance are Canadian waters; none of it is in Alaska, NONE OF IT. Yes, "you" have published maps claiming that it is, but Iraq used to publish maps showing Kuwait as part of Iraq, too. I didn't remove the Straits of Alaska Cat or the Alaskan Census Area added recently but I'm of a mind to. The border dispute will come up again soon if the Bush administration ends the offshore drilling moratorium (or if BC does, which is another possibility) and all those exploration leases in Canadian waters the US/Alaska govenrments have mapped out will wind up in the International Court in the Hague, unless Ottawa decides to look the other way in order to keep the auto parts industry functioning or the like, or some other trade-off of another region's interests over BC's, but for now under the treaty as it is written and as the US signed it, the waters of the Dixon Entrance are NOT - I repated N*O*T in the State of Alaska.....15:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Back in the 1840s, the American cry was "54-40 or fight!" They wanted the US territory to extend north to 54 degrees, 40 minutes north... the edge of Russian territory.

Now, the shoe's on the other foot, and suddenly that isn't where they want the boundary after all? Sorry, but if they wanted it up to 54-40 to cut off British access to the Pacific Ocean, then they wanted the territory to be undivided south of that line. So, now they're on the Russian side of the line and now must accept the line. As a concession, I'd say to draw a line 12 miles off the Alaskan islands and trace it back the Portland Canal line. I'd upload a map I've made, but I'm not sure of the status of the map I drew it on top of. GBC (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of the British rationale for the whole of the Dixon Entrance - which was part of the original deal with the Russians, before the Russians sold their claim to the US - was to ensure that the British coast immediately south of the line could not be subjected to naval blockade. The modern US position, as I understand it, is that the treaty did not cover fishing and undersea rights (as undersea rights, they say, were not known of at the time as a factor). Whatever, it's not something we can be POV about in the article and as far as Alaskan categories go, they see it as being a "Strait of Alaska" and "part of" the county/borough in that part of Alaska. In all likelihood when the re-negotiation finally takes place (when offshore oil drilling become's front-burner) Ottawa will compromise in order to get a better deal on the Auto Pact or another cross-border issue relating to other parts of Canada....see Alaska boundary dispute for a map of the British Columbian and British claims (which were different btw).Skookum1 (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the one reference on this page, The Alaska Boundary Dispute: History and International Law, seems to describe the history and current status of the dispute rather well. Pfly (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

---

This is an actual dispute. I used to be a commerical fisherman in BC. In the mid to late 80s, the Americans seized several BC fishing boats that were south of the A-B line (54-40), because the Americans claimed they were fishing in the USA. There was also continued dispute about how the border goes west Cape Mazon (sp) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.166.250 (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)