Actually, that section of the Oakstone Charter is pretty much in place
as a matter of courtesy and to prevent inconvenience to all parties
involved.

If we find a shrine a threat we're definitely going to actively and
repeatedly remove it. There's not really any question about it. And
Qwilleran's right, there are a lot of us to see that done.

There are two main ways a shrine can pose a threat. The first and least
common is when a shrine is used to harm or prevent forestals trying to
perform their duties (ie. A shrine worldburning while forest fires are
being fought).

The second and more common occurs when a shrine imposes on our defensive
capabilities by it's placement (ie. A shrine to a Divinity not related
to Nature is placed in a strategic forest position, usually a forest
entry point, and prevents a forestal shrine in that location. That
location is then unable to be defended with shrine powers against forest
enemies trying to enter/harm the forest at that point).

So basically, if you speak to the Hierophants and say 'We were intending
to put a shrine in at <some particular grove>, does that work for you as
well?' You'll most likely receive a 'Sure, that doesn't clash with our
defense at all', or an 'Actually, that's right near a defensive point,
if you just place the shrine five groves to the east it would work a lot
better for us'. Either way, you wouldn't have to deal with your shrines
being torn down so that forestals can mount a stronger defense in
future.

Or, of course, you could just stubbornly ignore the Council charged with
protecting the area that you want to place a shrine in and then waste
the time of everyone involved if that shrine needs to be relocated in
future.

Elsp.

Penned by my hand on the 17th of Sarapin, in the year 362 AF.