mostly, but as it’s a highly politicized subtle distinction, I had to stand a position quite some time ago.
Over the National Parks Conservation Association basically.
Is nature for well managed public (regular human citizen) use or is nature to be preserved for the animals (and the scientists who care for nature)?
I’m a big fan of the US National Park system, including (not despite) the fact that humans are messy creatures.
Human are a part of nature, both expert and non-expert alike. With a governed land mass, a wise government will set aside lands for the use of its citizens and care for the lands both for the citizens and creatures within.
Without it, the lands will likely fall to commercial development.
But too extreme of a control and it removes it from the public use entirely becoming a realm solely for expert and the creatures, skipping the public.