    The actual question of cost in any exploitation of a natural
resource is an interesting one.  Are the expenses the exploiter
pays, for equipment and workers wages the only costs?  In recent
years there was a controvercy, not in Canada, but in the United
States, over the issue of stumpage fees, fees paid to the
Canadian goverment, for the priviledge of making stumps. America
used its economic power to open up this market. And then, when
Canadian shingles and shakes were cheaper than American ones,
the U. S. slapped an import tariff on them.  But in general, is
the real cost of the loss to the environment of the trees,
especially old growth trees actually paid? And who bears it? The
exploiter, rather like a miner takes out the tress, sometimes in
clear-cut--taking out every tree in sight, leaving nothing left
growing. Maybe he will replace them, maybe not.  The ground
becomes unstable, and is washed away when it rains, filling the
waterways with mud--not good for fish, and other aquatic life.
There is the l