For sure, dry doesn't describe much of any forested area around here. I do not see how the lack of a shut off valve (as in an alcohol or esbit stove) increases the risk of forest fire any more than any other stove that does have a valve. This definition I do not see as "reasonable". I completely understand the need for bans, both for fire prevention and for conservation and do see them as reasonable. But if an authority out there is using that definition, even if it is an unreasonable definition, they are the authority. I wonder if it was a personal definition by someone in that office or whether it is a USFS definition? Interesting nonetheless.