A recent ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that blocks a fuel reduction project on the Bitterroot National Forest is a head-scratcher, for sure.

Ninth Circuit goes to forestry school

Granted, it's just a 60-day injunction that stops some of the work until a lawsuit from the WildWest Institute goes to trial before U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy of Missoula. Sixty days is not a lifetime, of course, but this 60 days certainly throws a monkey wrench into the Bitterroot Forest's plans to harvest trees with commercial value to pay for continued thinning work that involves the removal of fuels of no value.

The rationale for the injunction is a complete mystery. There's exactly one paragraph, no, make that one sentence, from the 9th Circuit pertaining to the injunction: The Forest Service can proceed with fuels reduction and restoration activities associated with the project, "but any such harvest shall not include trees greater than 8 inches diameter at breast height and old growth habitat."

That's it. No further explanation.

That's a stunning silvicultural determination from a court that constantly deals with claims of "arbitrary and capricious" decisions on the part of land managers.

The two-judge panel that provided the injunction couldn't possibly be more arbitrary.

Why does the ruling apply just to trees that are 8 inches or larger, especially when the project plan allowed removal of trees up to 10 inches in diameter? The esteemed judges apparently have concerns about the 2-inch difference, but the parties involved and the public will never know what those concerns were.

It's important to remember that this case doesn't involve clearcutting in roadless areas by greedy timber companies. No, this is fuel reduction work, and the only commercial parties involved are a log home business and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, which thinks the project will also improve wildlife habitat.

This is just another case of the judiciary putting itself into an executive, managerial role, deciding what's best for the land based on legal briefs. But in this case, the judges didn't even bother to explain the legal or scientific merits of their decision.