I knew that writing a column about a hunter and guide who dared (gasp) question Maine’s current bear-hunting practices was bound to generate some controversy.

I figured Cecil Gray, the hunter and guide in question, would be supported by some and skewered by others after last weekend’s column.

As soon as the first e-mail showed up, I knew that I’d underestimated.

That e-mail, an angry (yet well-researched) missive, showed up on Friday … last Friday … the day before my column even ran.

How did that happen? I had “teased” the column in Thursday’s editions, and discussed in general terms the topic to be covered in Saturday’s paper.

And on Friday morning … there was my first “response.”

Some might say that “responding” to something that hasn’t even been printed yet may tend to show a certain lack of open-mindedness.

Some might say that. But not me. Nope. No way. I learned my lesson.

You see, in the past week, I have been called a traitor. I have been accused of betraying Maine hunters. I have been told that I am a tremendous disappointment.

Why? Because I let one man speak his piece in a column that is targeted at outdoors enthusiasts, but which is (I hope) read by many who don’t head afield very often at all.

You may be interested in knowing that Cecil Gray and I don’t agree on bear baiting.

I have written about the bear referendum countless times, and have said the same thing each time: I tend to support the biologists. If they’re convinced that we need to bait bears in order to manage them … I trust them.

And once, I gave a man the chance to speak his piece … and found out that some folks think I’m of questionable moral fiber just because I thought that doing so (once espoused as a basic tenet of American civilization) was a good idea.

You wrote and called. I read and listened. You’re fired up on this issue. I’m with you.

For the record, 53 percent of readers who responded disapproved of either Gray or the fact that I wrote about him. The other 47 percent approved of the column or Gray’s position.

Here is a representative sample:

From Tom Rushmore of Orrington:

“It was with great disappointment that I read your latest article supporting the anti-hunting referendum on bear. -For you to suggest this effort is about fair hunting practices and not a larger anti-hunting agenda is incredibly naive … You are painting the majority of Maine hunters as ignorant fools being guided solely by the [Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine], an association that you seem to have a personal problem with.”

A quick note: I replied to Rushmore and pointed out that Gray supported the referendum … that Gray suggests it’s about fair hunting … and that Gray makes all assertions in the column. I merely served as a neutral narrator.

As for me and SAM … I’ve got a fine working relationship with the group, and think they do a lot of good things for Maine outdoors enthusiasts.

Back to the mailbag. From John Glowa:

“… You know, the vast majority of Mainers do not hunt. A vast majority of Mainers oppose bear baiting. I appreciate your effort to present a balanced look at the issue. I appreciate your effort to raise the level of debate and discussion – but [some readers] don’t want the real issues to be debated or even mentioned, certainly not by an outdoors writer … Thank you for your attempt to show both sides of this story. Your credibility has grown considerably in my book.”

From Jeff Hopkins:

“Did you ever really wonder what their motivation is behind their scheme to attempt the ruination of the guide, trapping, and bear-hunting industry in Maine?

“… I wonder how many papers the BDN sells to the national groups, such as [the Humane Society of the United States] as compared to hard-working Maine people that enjoy hunting and fishing?”

From Peter Hilton of Presque Isle:

“I submit that having the referendum process become the vehicle for this sort of subversive attack on Maine’s traditional sporting activities is an outright perversion of the democratic process itself. To re-emphasize my point: Forcing a referendum, through emotion and rhetoric, which may decide a multi-faceted game management issue by way of a stark yes/no vote is a direct betrayal of the principles behind a constitutional republic.”

From Troy Frye, this preamble to a significantly longer piece on the issue:

“I believe you are against this bear referendum as am I, and I know you need to print the news from both sides of the fence. The article you printed this past weekend I feel hurt the people who have been fighting the bear referendum. This issue is going to effect the 70,000 people who live in Wildlife Management Districts 1-6 the most. Approximately 5,000 bear hunters visit this area each year and this helps the economy up north.”

From Bob Croce of Dedham:

“Kudos, John, for writing and publishing the Cecil Gray bear-hunting article this past weekend. You earned my respect for writing a “neutral” report on the bear referendum coming up … the issue deserves thoughtful debate on the ethics of our current bear-hunting practices, and articles like yours are a step in the right direction.”

And from Jerry Bishop in Lucerne-in-Maine:

“Thank you for showing ‘the other side of the coin’ with the article on Cecil Gray’s view on the debate. I have been a hunter for 50 years now and could not agree more with Mr. Gray’s statements. I am also not a member of any anti group. I strongly believe that if this thing doesn’t pass, we will only be shooting ourselves in the foot and will continue to give ourselves a bad name with the general public. It’s time we start showing the public we care something about the game we hunt. I stress the word ‘hunt.'”

Cindy McNeal of Holden stopped by the office the other day to share a photo you may find interesting.

McNeal, who lives on Eaton Ridge in Holden, snapped the photo of a bobcat sitting … and sitting … and sitting in her driveway on a sunny afternoon.

McNeal said she had seen unfamiliar tracks around the house, but hadn’t given them much thought. Then she saw the bobcat about 25 feet from her house.

“[He sat there] probably about 10 minutes. I think he was just sitting with the sun on his back,” McNeal said.

McNeal said that in a sitting position, the cat was still about waist-high. She watched for a bit, then got her digital camera.

“I took one picture and it said my memory was full, so I started to delete some of the other photos that I had on it, hoping I didn’t delete that one,” McNeal said. “I just couldn’t get them deleted, and he was gone by the time I figured out what I was doing.”

McNeal said she was happy she wound up getting one good shot out the garage window.

“I was very excited. I love wildlife and I’m always looking for it, but I didn’t quite expect to see that sitting there,” she said.

John Holyoke can be reached at jholyoke@bangordailynews.net or by calling 990-8214 or 1-800-310-8600.