Ignoring it is an easy way to get wildland firefighters around here to abandon your home in an instant. They refuse to waste their time fighting a totally lost cause.
I am quite fond of national parks, but note that the conflict isn't quite as morally black-and-white as your phrasing implies: when I lobby to preserve beautiful open space, what I'm trying to do is use public resources to secure a private good (my viewing pleasure) and prevent others to enjoy the use of that land; likewise, when someone else tries to exploit a resource for financial gain, he's meeting the needs of others on the market. I'm not a selfless hero, nor is he a heartless villain. The reality is that we're both acting in what we believe our self interest is, and we're both acting in order to serve others.
If the resource extractors were just doing it for their own personal use, and encouraging others to do the same, that might be comparable. Or if the nature enthusiasts were selling access to others.
In both cases, there's a market need being fulfilled; that's even more defendable for the resource extraction, as they're a business which must make an economic profit, or otherwise die.
I'm not defending resource extraction above preservation, however the above poster did make a solid point on the morality issue.
Imagine if people who advocate for cutting timber on public land proposed that the government should cut down the trees and sell the results, because they just love lumber and want everyone to have access to high-quality lumber.
I see your perspective that it's different as the lumber companies are telling the government "Hey, we should cut down all these trees, and I should sell them for profit!". The OP's point, though, is that the only reason the lumber company would make a profit is because there is a need for the lumber, and people will pay for it.
It's still morally identical in terms of people having a desired use for the land, just with the corporation as a middleman.
I don't believe that OP is advocating for resource extraction over preservation. Regardless, however, the goal should be to upvote any polite and well-explained opinion, while only downvoting comments that lack meaningful content.
"Silencing ideas or basking in intellectual orthodoxy independent of facts and evidence impedes our access to new and better ideas, and inhibits a full and considered rejection of bad ones." - Drew Faust
Look. I favor protection of federal lands for the most part. But there is a reflexive belief in some circles that land use should be restricted as much as possible and uses like hunting should be generally banned.