Good call, sd. Even though they bristle at the suggestion, "environazis" is the perfect name for them.
I'm going to differ with you both here again. In a fascist state, the owner of the timber would have a cozy deal with the government. The loggers would work for him or another conglomerate (or Zaibatsu). As much logging as was required for the state's interests would be conducted, but the individual owner would naturally have a personal preference for doing what the state preferred -- as those in power have by definition, like minds.
However, what we have here are watermellons: green on the outside, but red on the inside. They want the state to own and manage the land to the exclusion of all other interests. This by itself would be odious, since it violates the principle of shared community access, but they take it further. Their secondary purpose is no doubt to increase state control over a significant national resource because power comes with both moving a resource into state control and then taking over its "management." We've seen the suit-happy greenies go nuts in the past 30 years.
Another twist on environmentalism is the Chinese model: the state owns everything and doesn't care about preserving it. For example, the air in some parts of China is horrendous and nobody could do anything about it during the rule of the red communist hardliners. I doubt that's changing under their increasingly fascist Chinese regime of today. By the way, Michael Ledeen's commentary on the differences between fascism and communism are excellent in that link.