In this Nov. 18, 2022, file photo, a few large pine trees are surrounded by smaller ones in a section of Bass River State Forest in Bass River Township, New Jersey. Credit: Wayne Parry / AP

Letters submitted by BDN readers are verified by BDN Opinion Page staff. Send your letters to

The recent Bangor Daily News headline “Better Forestry could boost carbon storage in New England” certainly caught my attention. But the most important line was buried at the end: “The study, based on forest growth and yield models, only takes into account carbon stored in the forests and not carbon stored in long-lived wood products.”

The young trees that grow back after a harvest remove atmospheric carbon dioxide at a faster rate than the harvested mature trees. Many of those trees are used to create long-lived lumber products like the houses we live in. The economy of growing trees to produce renewable products is like having your cake and eating it too. I think the idea that we need many millions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies to pay landowners to delay harvests and instead grow older and denser forests is idiotic. It’s certainly not my idea of better forestry.

Jim Contino

Retired professional forester