In fairness, many of the people I dismiss as dead wood standing are nice, and are able to interact with the public reasonably well, but when it comes to actually contributing to innovative management, not so much. We see so many more people in the woods making recreational demands, and we also have species under strain and higher timber extraction targets and etc... it takes a bit of creativity to make all this work together, and that can be in short supply.
Also, just to make a distinction that many people don't understand, the Forest Service is part of the USDA. A Ranger in the FS is the line officer responsible for acreage, sort of the captain of a single ship in an armada. One fascinating thing: signatory responsibility for acreage lies at the District Ranger (a GS-12 or 13 position that is always local). The Forest Supervisor can instruct (admiral in my fleet analogy), the Region can instruct (fleet command), but the ultimate authority lies locally. That doesn't come into play much, but it does change the dynamic. Parks (and Monuments) are part of DOI, as is the BLM. A ranger in Interior tends to be much more outward facing.
As far as I can tell, the Government takes a perverse pleasure in making things difficult to understand with different names for the same role and jargon for every aspect of process, and then asking for public input which they will disregard if the details of the comment aren't perfect. Where's the beating head into the wall smiley? :-)