Fair, yeah. We need a different term for the ideology to separate it from conservatism.

I'd rather continue because I know the few people who read this thread without being too influenced by the massive downvoting may learn something, and maybe you will too.

Here are the relative quotes you may have missed

The early conservation movement evolved out of necessity to maintain natural resources such as fisheries, wildlife management, water, soil, as well as conservation and sustainable forestry

Some say the conservation movement is part of the broader and more far-reaching environmental movement, while others argue that they differ both in ideology and practice. Conservation is seen as differing from environmentalism and it is generally a conservative school of thought which aims to preserve natural resources expressly for their continued sustainable use by humans.

The early years of the environmental and conservation movements were rooted in the safeguarding of game to support the recreation activities of elite white men, such as hunting.[29] This led to an economy to support and perpetuate these activities as well as the continued wilderness conservation to support the corporate interests supplying the hunters with the equipment needed for their sport.[29] Game parks in England and the United States allowed wealthy hunters and fishermen to deplete wildlife, while hunting by Indigenous groups, laborers and the working class, and poor citizens--especially for the express use of sustenance--was vigorously monitored.[29] Scholars have shown that the establishment of the U.S. national parks, while setting aside land for preservation, was also a continuation of preserving the land for the recreation and enjoyment of elite white hunters and nature enthusiasts.[29]

While Theodore Roosevelt was one of the leading activists for the conservation movement in the United States, he also believed that the threats to the natural world were equally threats to white Americans. Roosevelt and his contemporaries held the belief that the cities, industries and factories that were overtaking the wilderness and threatening the native plants and animals were also consuming and threatening the racial vigor that they believed white Americans held which made them superior.[30] Roosevelt was a big believer that white male virility depended on wildlife for its vigor, and that, consequently, depleting wildlife would result in a racially weaker nation.[30] This lead Roosevelt to support the passing of many immigration restrictions, eugenics legislations and wildlife preservation laws.[30] For instance, Roosevelt established the first national parks through the Antiquities Act of 1906 while also endorsing the removal of Indigenous Americans from their tribal lands within the parks.[31] This move was promoted and endorsed by other leaders of the conservation movement, including Frederick Law Olmstead, a leading landscape architect, conservationist, and supporter of the national park system, and Gifford Pinchot, a leading eugenicist and conservationist.[31] Furthering the economic exploitation of the environment and national parks for wealthy whites was the beginning of ecotourism in the parks, which included allowing some Indigenous Americans to remain so that the tourists could get what was to be considered the full "wilderness experience".[32]

Etc.

More straw man arguments, I never called him a conservative.

The conservative position on national parks, at least in the west, would be that they should remain open for resource extraction.

Yes, that's the point, but also consider that this how it started, before progressive politics made it about nature preservation. Read the Wikipedia page or the quote I have taken have of it if you're feeling lazy.

You are simply objectively incorrect.

You are simply not trying to understand what I mean because you'd rather confirm the bias you have formed about me when you've seen the downvotes on my comments.