Oakstone, simply put, is not bound to the will of the public. They act
as the divine appointed protectors of their realm, the forest; moreover,
they are certainly under no responsibility to justify their actions to
anyone, regardless of how rash [to you] they may be.

However, to help many of you understand the decision that will most
likely not change: If you are being attacked by two snakes, and the
first one slits you twice, and the other only once. Do you blame the
first one as the sole reason you died? Do you take revenge only on the
one who slit you last, even though there is a a strong possiblity that
the second way did help cause your death?
-
The situation is fairly similar. However remote the possibility that
Silverfox overharvest, or was a factor in the overharvesting, Oakstone
can not leave any possibility for future damage. While Oakstone can not
prove that Silverfox committed a crime, they can neither prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that he didn't. Thus, they are only fufilling their
duty to the forest to the fullest capability by not letting there be a
chance at further damage.

-TGO

Penned by my hand on the 5th of Scarlatan, in the year 344 AF.