I like this article (maybe mostly because I like Tomasik), though I find it a bit dated, and the twelve years that have passed since then indicate that the thesis is somewhat off (to be fair, I think Tomasik would agree that his evidence is very anecdotal). While the popularity of wilderness preservation in the mainstream has grown since then, it seems that large fractions of the animal rights / welfare movement has been pretty distant from it. Anti-wilderness-preservation views have been endorsed by some of the main animal rights influencers: James Aspey, Die Militante Veganerin, Gary Yourofsky (to varying extents: I think Gary Yourofsky finds nature bloody and somewhat horrific, but I'm not sure that he's explicitly anti-wilderness preservation, but the first two are clearer on it).

Meanwhile, in animal welfare (at least the EA-leaning side of it), consideration for wild animal welfare is quite common. But that slice of animal welfare is a small world.

One anecdotal observation is that among more "normal" ethical vegans, habitat destruction is commonly seen as much less important than factory farming.

However, I think there is truth in the article: vegans are probably more likely to have concerns about "the environment", and there are pro-habitat-preservation memes that end up being tied with animal rights. So I'm not saying that animal advocacy systematically make people less favourable to wilderness preservation.