I would like to comment on the story by staff reporter Katherine Cassidy (“Town vs. taxpayers: Lobstermen in Cutler at odds with harbor masters,” BDN, May 4). I believe the story was biased and ignored important elements of state law.

I have never met Cassidy, but I received two phone calls from her. The first was to say hello and tell me that she used my name in a story about the situation dealing with the Cutler harbor masters and brothers Mike and Dale Griffin [two nonresident lobstermen who own waterfront property in town and want to fish out of Cutler]. The second was to simply ask me why I had resigned my position as harbor master; not, in my opinion, an interview. Some of her misquotes and blatantly wrong information are as follows:

The town’s harbor committee has been very active over the last two years. Dates and minutes of the meetings validate this. Instead, the reader is made to believe that the committee has only met very recently.

The harbor committee first discussed the gate for the boat ramp in the spring and summer of 2004, not at last month’s meeting, as the story suggests. The gate was locked for only five hours, and not by the harbor masters who are the ones charged with enforcement of the town’s harbor ordinance and MSRA Title 38 Chapter 1 of state law. However, it was the town’s harbor masters’ objections at their March 28 meeting, the same day the gate was inadvertently locked, that caused the locks to be removed, not by residents asserting their rights.

Title 38 section 7 gives a town’s harbor committee the right to regulate their harbor. Cassidy’s story talks about the harbor masters cutting a mooring off. Harbor masters under state law, Title 38, section 4, have the right to remove a mooring, or cut the mooring ball off, but not to cause one’s boat to go adrift. Cutler’s harbor masters have never cut off a mooring, or set a boat adrift.

Did Cassidy state that Mike Griffin never came to the harbor masters when his skiff was allegedly cut loose? I do not dispute that his skiff went adrift, but why didn’t he report it to the harbor masters? Did she report that Mike’s lobster boat went adrift on March 1 during a storm while tied to a friend’s mooring? Title 38 section 3 deals with waterfront property owners. The Griffins own such a parcel of land, but that does not automatically “entitle” the Griffins to a mooring as the story states. It appears that Cassidy failed to research Title 38. Title 38 section 3 also expressly forbids a mooring permit holder to allow someone else to use “his” assignment.

The Cutler Harbor Ordinance also states that the permit is for the permit holder’s own boat, not for another. Did she find out that the “hangman’s noose” was first placed in a harbor maters’ bait bin? No, she didn’t get the “whole story,” just one side of the story. Every fisherman loses gear. Should I claim that I have also lost thousands of dollars’ worth of gear with no way to prove it?

The July 2004 special town meeting was to address the amendments to the harbor ordinance, along with other town issues for the residents to vote on. The amendments to the harbor ordinance were added because of the ever-increasing use of town facilities, the boat ramp, by nonresidents, particularly urchin divers during the winter months. The town spent $14,000 in the spring of 2004 to repair and maintain the boat ramp. Shouldn’t those who use the ramp help pay for maintenance?

Regarding Cassidy’s comments on the Cutler Harbor Ordinance that the intent “is to maximize the number of mooring spaces in the harbor,” the ordinance states: “to maximize available mooring space” ? space, not the number of moorings. Did she report that at the town’s annual town meeting in 2004, the townspeople voted not to increase the 10 percent minimum requirement on nonresident moorings? The law states that a town has to have a minimum, not a maximum. Cutler has that minimum.

Did she research that in 2004 alone there were four new resident mooring permits issued? She states that “no change in the number of resident moorings has occurred in years.” Did she find out how many children I have or their names or ages, that were harassed at school because of this issue? No, but she lists all of the Griffin brothers and their ages. A town has to defend itself, not be bullied by people that threaten you with litigation. It is the town of Cutler and its officials that are being harassed, not the Griffins.

If the Griffins had a pleasure boat instead of a fishing boat, and were looking for a mooring in Cutler harbor, the harbor masters would still deny them a mooring permit. This isn’t a fishing issue, but rather an issue of state law and a town’s right to regulate itself. I do not dispute the Griffins’ right to appeal the harbor masters’ decision concerning their mooring applications. I do find fault with the reporter not taking the time to research her story and then being allowed to take up almost the entire front page and call it news.

John Drouin, of Cutler, recently resigned as a harbor master.