Who Told It Best?

The word, "narrative", comes up in our understanding of the Adirondacks quite frequently.  The way we understand a place such as the Adirondacks best is through narratives of the land and people occupying it.  This becomes clear from hearing stories about experiences in the Adirondacks, whether it be one of the original settlers, an urban dweller escaping city life, McKibben, or any one of our peers.  Even the Atlas tells a cohesive narrative about land usage in the Adirondacks through use of comprehensive graphs detailing mineral deposits.  As Terrie references towards the end of our reading in response to the seasonal sporters who came to resort-like places in the Adirondacks, 

"This is not to say that one of these sets of perceptions was somehow superior to or more genuine than the other.  The point is that the development of a culture of tourism added a complex new narrative thread to the story and nature in the Adirondacks." (40)

But this raises the question, "How do we decide what to do about the Adirondacks?"  In evaluating things such as laws, land usage, animal population regulations, what narrative do we believe?  What narrative is the most pervasive? Where do we put the most trust in?  There lies points of contention between any two narratives.  The one that stood out in my mind the most was concerning the deer hunting in the 1800's.  The settlers hunted deer without reserve; it was crucial for their sustenance.  However, environmental laws prohibited the hunting of the certain type of deer commonly hunted.  How do we deal with the differences between those two lifestyles?  It seems to make sense to commonly default to the benefit of the inhabitants of the land, but there would lie heavy implications to the frequent hunting and cutting down of trees if everyone was left to their own devices.  How can we rectify the infinite points of contention between the narratives that comprise our image of what is the true Adirondacks?