No Dogs at Boat Launch

[nj2nh]

I was going to append this to the thread that currently exists about dogs at the boat ramp, but I thought it would get lost amongst all those messages.

It turns out that the original posting was totally incorrect. Dogs are indeed allowed at the boat ramp. I e-mailled the Parks and Recreation Dept. (which the original poster should have done before starting the bruhaha) and got the following response:


Thank you for your interest in the Town of Alton park areas. We recognize
the importance of including our pets in our parks and are providing the
following references for your information.

TOWN OF ALTON ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS, March 1995
“3.3 Animals- Animals are prohibited from being in the water within any
authorized swim area or being on swim docks. All persons shall be
responsible to clean-up after their dogs and remove any waste substance from
Town-Owned property.”

TOWN BEACHES-DOG REGULATIONS
“The Town of Alton has instituted a regulation restricting dogs from the
town beaches and swim areas. This would include the sandy beach area and
swimming zone located along 28A; the swim dock grassy area from the boat
ramp to the community center and the actual swimming area.”

Dogs are welcome in Alton Bay across from the public restrooms, parallel to
the lake until the public boat ramp. Dogs are able to access the lake at
the public boat ramp. Dogs are also welcome at Jones Field Park and Liberty
Tree Park.

To answer your question:
A sign is not posted to prohibit dogs from swimming at the boat ramp. The
sign indicates dogs are not allowed in the swim area, defined by buoys, and
on the grass from the boat ramp to the Community Center. The boat ramp is
outside the swim area buoys and dogs are permitted to use it. :0)
Please let me know if you have other questions I'd be happy to help answer
them.
Kellie Troendle, Parks and Recreation Director


So, it was all for nothing. Funny that someone from New Jersey figured out a way to find the answer to this question.

Jersey Girl

[Winnipesaukee Divers]

It was not all for nothing… How many times did you see the link to "The Lilac Pit Bull Boutique"? This was just another form of free advertising. Had I been the webmaster, I would have put a halt to it immediately and sent her a nasty gram explaining the rules of the forum. But I’m not and it made for good entrainment to watch so many get so worked up over nothing but an advertising scam.

But then again, I’m prodigious… I think Pit bulls taste bad… You need a good mutt for the best tasting tacos…

[RLW]

Originally Posted by Winnipesaukee Divers

It was not all for nothing… How many times did you see the link to "The Lilac Pit Bull Boutique"? This was just another form of free advertising. Had I been the webmaster, I would have put a halt to it immediately and sent her a nasty gram explaining the rules of the forum. But I’m not and it made for good entrainment to watch so many get so worked up over nothing but an advertising scam.

But then again, I’m prodigious… I think Pit bulls taste bad… You need a good mutt for the best tasting tacos…

I believe she did more harm for her business than good. That was one of the first things I noticed and said that she was really hurting herself doing what she was doing.
Thanks Jersey girl for you taking the time to do what the original poster said she was going to do at some point of time, but didn't or did not list what she found out.

[hazelnut]

RLW, I felt the same way. So much so that I deliberately clicked on the link to ensure that I knew what business I wouldn't be patronizing. If this was a marketing ploy I think it backfired.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Winnipesaukee Divers

How many times did you see the link to "The Lilac Pit Bull Boutique"?

Before I make an appointment with the eye doctor, where exactly are these links? Were they removed before I saw the relevent post(s)?

[onthebay]

Wow, and I bet LilacHill was behind the grassy knoll in Dallas, knows where Hoffa is buried and is behind the rising oil prices.
I love this forum but sometimes the piling on that goes on when someone is on the losing end of a discussion isn't pretty.
I never knew she even ran a business or was trying to advertise. You would have had to look up her profile to get that info.
The only thing she was guilty of was being mistaken.

[NightWing]

No, I saw the links too. Perhaps the webmaster edited them out because advertising is not permitted.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by onthebay

Wow, and I bet LilacHill was behind the grassy knoll in Dallas, knows where Hoffa is buried and is behind the rising oil prices.
I love this forum but sometimes the piling on that goes on when someone is on the losing end of a discussion isn't pretty.
I never knew she even ran a business or was trying to advertise. You would have had to look up her profile to get that info.
The only thing she was guilty of was being mistaken.

Onthebay I will forgive you because you may have just tuned to this discussion and you do not have the correct information.
Originally Lilachill had a link in their signature that was removed from the thread. It was extremely blatant and all you had to do was click on it and you were directed to a commercial website.
Also, losing end????? There was no losing end, there were differences of opinion but nobody won or lost here. People expressed an opinion based on false facts the only loser in my opinion is Lilachill who started a discussion with false information. Everything else is moot.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by onthebay

I never knew she even ran a business or was trying to advertise. You would have had to look up her profile to get that info.
T

Just going on what you said here. This is a false statement. If you had read the thread as it unfolded you would have seen a link to click on. It was originally part of the signature. So I can only assume you read the thread after the link in the signature was removed. That's why I threw the comment your way. Sorry for that but it was the way I felt.

I guess I also took offense to your assertion that there were winners and losers in the argument. I don't feel that is the case. It was opinionated sure but then again isn't that what a debate is. If you read the thread which you say you did there were several individuals debating back and forth and all of a sudden you drop in your .02 calling some folks losers and basically poor sports. How are we to know that you have been "reading the posts throughout?" Should we just assume this? If you want to participate go right ahead but offer up an opinion and join the discussion. Sticking your nose in it kind of summarizes someone who just drops a comment in the latter end of a discussion offering no real information just inflammatory comments pointing to who won or who lost.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

This is a false statement. If you had read the thread as it unfolded you would have seen a link to click on.

In onthebays defense, I too followed this thread from the start and never saw the links. That's why I asked in post #91 if I was going blind. It's very easy to miss things, even if you're a frequent visitor to the forum. I check in at least 3 times a day...I had to find some other addiction after giving up cigarettes.

I'm going back to the weather threads now.

[onthebay]

Thanks Rose. I don't see as well as I used to either.
Lets just say for arguments sake (excuse me, discussions sake) it was there. It it still your point Hazelnut that Lilac went out of her way to get free publicity for her business or non business.
I think your problem is that I may have inadvertantly inferred that you were on the losing side of an argument (sorry, discussion) when that wasn't the case at all. Once it was proven LilacHill was wrong in her belief about the sign it seemed to "me" maybe others as well that there was some piling on.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Rose

In onthebays defense, I too followed this thread from the start and never saw the links. That's why I asked in post #91 if I was going blind. ...I had to find some other addiction after giving up cigarettes.

Stay off the cigs, it's not easy. I know, I can't have just one. I'm a non practicing cig-aholic.

You're not going blind Rose. The link was there as part of Lilac's signature much like I have a Ham Radio Info link with my signature.

I saw the link to Lilac's Pit Bull boutique. When the link disappeared from her posts I thought Lilac removed it to quell the ruckus. Webmaster could also change it as it may have been deemed commercial advertising. I didn't know.

Some are suggesting that this thread was an advertising gimmick. IMHO she caters to a niche clientèle. In this case, the name itself would not attract me no matter how many messages she posted in this thread with the link, one or a hundred. It wouldn't influence my mouse. If I was interested in her business I'd Google "Pit Bull Boutique NH". I did today to check out the site. I was pleasantly surprised to see the variety of items plus the artwork and services seem to be quite good. No offense though Lilac, I'm not into Pit Bulls or Boutiques (unless..., does Victoria's Secret have boutiques? ). I don't do gift and antique shops either .

I have difficulty finding places near our boat where I can walk our dog so I was interested in this thread.

I usually don't get involved with forum politics however I have to give LilacHill the benefit of the doubt and add my 2 cents. She started the thread with an Alton related topic. After that, she mostly responded to other posts and participated in discussion. Her web statistics show a 2 day spike in viewership starting the 16th, the same day message #82 by Winnipesaukee Divers was posted. He was the first to call attention to the "free advertising" theory. I can only view the last week of her web stats: 14 page views on both the 14th and 15th versus 24 page views after msg #82 on the 16th and 27 page views on the 17th. Then it falls back to 6 views. The increased web traffic seems to start after Winnie Divers' post rather than Lilac's. It would be interesting to see the web stats for the whole month and let M-n-M crunch the numbers like unique vs. first time hits, page views and etc and correlate it the start of this thread.

When I see a No Dogs Allowed sign I don't run to the local town hall right away and ask for specifics. I assume it means "here". Even if it may be hard to tell where the dogs are prohibited from going. Are dogs prohibited from going past the sign? To the left of the sign? To the right? Around the sign? Within 150 feet of the sign? On the ramp, in the swim area or by the beach? Within reading distance of the sign? You get the idea.

Here is a local sign, NOT repeat NOT the sign at the Alton boat ramp.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

It would be interesting to see the web stats for the whole month and let M-n-M crunch the numbers like unique vs. first time hits, page views and etc and correlate it the start of this thread.

Alas I'm all tied up trying to figure out the best way to stun snail darters and fend off wayward ducks (perhaps, though not necessarily, using the aforementioned snail darters). I'm also trying to track down that one alcohol drinking, cigar smoking dog that ruined it for the rest ...

[Alton Mumma]

I am planning on popping into parks 'n rec tomorrow to pick up some summer brochures and was going to ask Kellie or Elizabeth about this issue while I was there. Now I don't have to

Cool! I'll have to take my Stewie down for a swim some time. He LOVES the water. And yes, I'll pick up the poo and follow the leash law