Leave no trace and Bushcraft seem to be in conflict with each other. Are they incompatible?

Wikipedia says:

"In the mid 20th-century there was a cultural shift in wilderness ethics from woodcraft where wilderness travelers prized themselves on their ability to rely on the resources of wild lands to a post-WWII ethics of minimal impact on the environment."

which suggests a direct conflict.

• From Woodcraft to'Leave No Trace': Wilderness, Consumerism, and Environmentalism in Twentieth-Century America, published in Environmental History 7.3 (2002) [mirrors]
• Leave No Trace killed Woodcraft… almost (contains interesting history of wilderness land management) [reddit discussion]
• the first two top-level comments here are great
• minimum impact versus displaced impact
• some other smaller pages: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
• Wikipedia:
  • Leave No Trace#Criticism
  • recreation ecology

More history of wilderness land management:

• "Beyond Leave No Trace." Ethics Place and Environment 12.1 (2009): 17-34.
• Backstory program on how American wilderness has been used going back 3+ centuries

Even more about the quote from above:

Unlike today’s backpacker, the skilled woodsman prided himself on living off of the land: building lean-tos, cooking over an open fire, and hunting for food. Woodcraft was steeped in self-reliance, masculine rhetoric, and discomfort with the modern consumer economy. Leopold envisioned wilderness as a refuge from modernity, where a working-knowledge of nature would reconnect people and the land.

No longer did a working knowledge of nature anchor the wilderness recreation experience—the new literature aimed to replace woodcraft, which it dismissed as “old-style” camping. ... In general, the new hiking guides dropped sections on building leantos, trapping, and hunting, and replaced them with instructions for selecting minimal-impact campsites, slowing trail erosion, and traveling as discreetly as possible.

Marking the gulf separating the anti-modernist woodsman and the modern backpacker, the well-equipped backpack had become a showcase for advanced consumer technology. ... Most guidebooks offered nothing more than a complacent paragraph-long acknowledgement of the irony that underlay using ever-more modern technology to get back to nature. Hart pointed out that “the stronger our wish to preserve the wild places, the less we can meet them on their own terms; the more sophisticated, civilized, and complex become the gadgets we must bring into them.” ... Only in the convoluted logic of modern consumer culture did it make sense that those actions in the shopping mall were the best way to save wilderness beyond.