It's amazing what you can tell from the tones of a conversation, without even hearing the words.

I was finishing up with a deer in a truck at our station (Feels weird to call a check station ours, after so many years of working alone. But I had two fellows helping me for the first three days of this deer season, and now they've been replaced by two others for the weekend. And no, there's no one to replace me...)

Anyway, as I finished company with one successful hunter, I noticed a young man get out of the following truck, and immediately engage one of my compadres in conversation. Asking a question in an almost pleading tone.

The response was kind and empathetic, but obviously that of someone saying "I don't know."

"You'll have to ask him," a finger pointing at me.

So I head on back, passing to the rear of their rig to find a headless, skinned deer carcass, with the head laying right next to where it used to be attached. A young woman is standing on the other side, with a worried look on her face. The look you would expect if you had told her you were going to take their grocery money for the next month. And throw her husband in jail.

Which, it turns out, is exactly what she feared was going to happen.

And a young boy standing next to her, trying to get her attention to find out what's going on, and being politely but firmly shushed.

Okaaaay. What have we got here?

The young man immediately grabs an antler to show the deer head is disembodied. And then explains that after removing the head, he had skinned the carcass to help cool the meat.

And stripped off the evidence of sex as well. As in, the balls were gone. Nothing on the carcass to prove it was a buck.

"That's okay, isn't it?"

There was an almost hopeless plea to his voice.

Well, yes, and no.

"Ohhh, man."

I love my "yes and no" response. Been using it quite a bit the past few days, and I suspect I am expressing a sadistic streak in me, because nobody likes that answer.

But it's usually closest to true.

The rules on "retaining evidence of sex" on harvested game are pretty self evident. If there is a reason to restrict people to taking one sex or the other, you gotta have some way of making sure they took the right kind. Hence, they have to leave the head attached, or the external sex organs. And it isn't enough to just have them laying loose, because folks could go around killing the wrong sex and just pass around and reuse the same deer head, or scrotum, or udder.

The fines can be expensive.

But, if the population is doing so well that we allow hunters to take any deer, antlers or not, then what difference does it make? Yes, we like the data we get from looking at teeth that come with the heads, but there's no legal reason to require the proof of sex. So hunters are free to strip the carcass clean.

Which is what I explained to the young man and his wife. And pointed out that, where they were hunting, they are currently allowed to take "any" deer.

So they're okay.

Their relief was quite evident.

Just a few minutes after they left, happily on their way into town, another pickup pulls in, towing a large camp trailer. Good, longtime friends of ours.

They were camping with the young couple with the headless deer.

And had been, for the past two days, (two days!) been harassing the young man about stripping his deer clean. About going to jail and paying a big fine. About there being six tough game wardens waiting at the end of the highway who were just looking for violations like no evidence of sex. And advising he should throw himself upon their mercy as soon as he reached the check station.

Knowing all along he had done nothing wrong.

Friends indeed.

The moral of the story?

Choose your camping neighbors carefully. They may be your friends, but that doesn't mean they'll be friendly.