National park infrastructure to access the nature requires funding, and thus the selling of access is inherent, so indirectly, yes. I see your perspective that

National park infrastructure to access the nature requires funding, and thus the selling of access is inherent, so indirectly, yes. 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.