A reader’s letter urges Americans to treat service dogs correctly—saying misrepresenting pets is a crime in New Mexico, that service animals must not be denied access under federal law, and that the public is limited to two questions. The same column also show
When a dog alerts you to a medical emergency, it isn’t “good behavior.” It’s lifesaving equipment—trained to smell dangerously high or low glucose levels, detect mood swings, anxiety and depression, and recognize an impending seizure. For a handler, it can’t be treated like a shortcut or a perk.
That’s the message in a letter shared in the Dear Abby advice column, where a New Mexico reader argues the public often gets the rules wrong—and sometimes intentionally. In New Mexico, the writer says, it is a crime to misrepresent a dog as a service animal.
The letter lays out what access should look like. The reader emphasizes that a service dog in training has the same access rights as one that is fully trained. and that the dog cannot be denied entry. Hotels that charge extra for pets, the letter says, cannot charge extra for a service dog. Airlines, too, must allow service dogs to fly free of charge and cannot deny access to any public facility.
Control matters, the writer adds. The handler must be in control of the animal at all times, and service dogs that bark excessively must be taken out of the facility. The letter draws a bright line for ordinary noise, saying a single “woof” is not excessive barking.
Federal law, the reader notes, sets the boundaries for what the public may ask. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act. only two questions are allowed: “Is that a service dog?” and “What task is the dog trained to perform?” Questions about the handler’s disability or need for a service dog are not allowed.
The writer also describes why etiquette is more than manners. The reader says a dog in training is learning to alert them to specific medical conditions and respond to assist. In that context. the letter warns against everyday distractions—never distract. talk to. or pet the service dog. and don’t make eye contact either—because pulling the dog’s attention could cause a serious problem.
The letter is also a response to what the writer calls confusion driven by dog owners “cheating the system,” representing pets as service animals. It frames the issue as a kind of public trust: when rules are bent, the people who rely on trained animals pay the price.
There is a different kind of vulnerability in another letter included in the same column. A reader in Maine writes that a significant other of 16 years is fighting cancer. while the reader’s own EKG results “weren’t great.” She says she told him the news and he “turned it right around to his own issues. ” leaving her feeling upset after she has catered to him—driving him to appointments and waiting on him “hand and foot.”.
Abby’s response. written by Abigail Van Buren (also known as Jeanne Phillips). is firm on that point: the reader is “not selfish. ” and is rightfully concerned about her own health as well as her significant other’s. The advice is practical—what she decides to do next is up to her. but if she needs someone to “watch your back. ” she may want to depend less on him. She should sit down, have a serious chat, and map out a strategy that benefits both.
Placed side by side. the letters share a common pressure point: how easily people can be pulled off-course when they feel entitled to attention—whether it’s a public trying to engage with a working dog like a pet. or a partner shifting focus away from urgent personal health. In both cases. the underlying claim is the same: rules exist because real bodies and real risks are involved. not because of preference.
service dogs Americans with Disabilities Act New Mexico airlines hotels etiquette Dear Abby Abigail Van Buren Jeanne Phillips EKG cancer