“God gave us dominion, Take it, Rape it, it’s yours.” Ann Coulter
And considering that we don’t actually understand the finer working of pretty much any of the ecosystems on this planet well enough to predict how they will respond to external changes long-term, the best way to “husband and maintain” them is to keep as large an area as is feasible in as close to untouched a state as possible. And when that’s not possible (as it usually isn’t), we should strive to understand and mimic the natural mechanisms that are interfered with (ie, artificial dispersal of animals between reserves to encourage gene flow between formerly-connected, now-isolated populations). In either case, this costs money, and isn’t necessarily compatible with maximal human use or enjoyment of the lands, plants, and animals involved. Conservatives tend to object to that.
Why not assert an inconsistency? It resolves your lack of understanding neatly. The discussion of conservative philosophy is interesting so don’t let me poop on it but it’s really unnecessary. Conservatives dont habitually discuss unintended consequences in the environment because it tends to promote governmental regulation which they oppose. Simple as pie.
Not that there is something wrong (or especially wrong) with conservatives. This is how people are. It’s a rare individual of any political stripe who brings up inconvenient information. When it’s convenient to discuss something it gets brought up. When not, not so much.