Cites Nearly a Victim to Our Dogs, 'The Training of Kennelmaids', Our Dogs 111 (1st Apr. 1938), p. 27.
Description:

‘Sir,- I was interested in a recent letter which you published from some unfortunate victim of the “Kennelmaid Ramp”.

My daughter, whose chief interest in life is dogs, wished to take her training some time ago, and, being ignorant of the procedure, made arrangements with some kennel people in the place we then lived, and agreed to pay £3 per week. Of course she soon found out from other people that this was an exorbitant sum, especially as she received no kennel training at all, merely doing the routine work of the kennel, whereas she had been promised stripping, instruction in the running of a kennel, whelping, care of dogs in sickness and in health, and in addition she was promised that she would go to shows and receive instruction there as to various pointers of value. She had one meal a day provided, she went to one show, and was left alone as soon as she arrived there, and had to find her own way about; nor did she get any “pointers” even at the judging of the specific breeds in which she was interested.

She left that place and went elsewhere, where she paid less (I am not sure of the sum), received good training, with valuable help and information about her work, in which she was, and is, keenly interested.

She intended running her own kennels on a modest scale, but unfortunately financial trouble and losses in the family prevented her from “carrying on” after she had bred her first very fine litter of pups; and she tried to get a post. I would never have believed that it was possible to get such “offers” as she has had. She has sold some of her puppies, but wished, if possible, to retain the bitch and two pups, and wanted to have those with her, being willing to take less, or no, salary if she could take her dogs to a “job.” But, if people told her they could take her dogs (and surely there is generally room in a kennel; she was prepared to find her own kennels and food), it was soon found that the little time given to her dogs was resented; her full time had to be given, and the less money paid for food given the more of her time was expected.

This girl has had training and about three years’ good experience with dogs; she studies everything that she can lay hands on, and has wonderful knowledge of dogs in health and in sickness, and nothing is too much trouble to do for these animals she loves. But what sort of salaries are offered? One lady wrote to say that she was willing that X should have her own dogs if she provided the kennels; the girl was to do kennel work, exercising (she is a tremendous walker and loves it), was to do housework, have no salary, and the good person added: “You understand, of course, that you would have to provide food for your dogs and for yourself.” What, then, was the reward for the very hard work she was being asked to do?

Another wrote that she required help with household duties and with large kennels, and added, most graciously, that she would be prepared to pay salary when proficient. I can imagine that, with such a person, no one ever becomes proficient. As soon as the salary is mentioned the good lady, no doubt, finds that the unfortunate creature is no good, and proceeds to find another “mug.” Salaries seem, as a rule, to run about 7s. 6d. to 10s. for absolutely full time service, and for trained girls with experience. My daughter has just been offered a job where she would be required, in addition, to do house work, some cooking, “help” with two children, take and interest in chickens, “help” with washing, for a maid’s wage of £1 per week! Oh no, the dear soul “never pays more than 12s. 6d. per week.” And one knows what the “helping” means; one ends up doing everthing. A “daily help” is supposed to be there, but when my daughter asked what the “help” did, she was told that she was “in the kitchen.” Doing what? Since she evidently did not do the cooking or washing up.

I hear that maids have formed a “union,” or about to do so; I would suggest that kennelmaids do likewise, and get some return for the outlay of money and energy. Boarding kennels, which are simply raking in the shekels, are mean to a degree when it comes to the salaries for their kennel hands. The Bible axiom means nothing to them, and they do not believe that “a labourer, truly, is worthy of his hire.” Then, too, the “pin money girl” crabs things for those who need the salary.'

Cited by Fancier of 20 Years' Standing to Our Dogs, 'Kennel Pupils', Our Dogs 82 (23rd Jan. 1931), pp. 213-214.
Description:

'concerns among kennel owners were matched by equally animated discussions among kennelmaids themselves, as well as their families, regarding the occupation and its pitfalls. One of the principal perceived dangers was finding oneself working not as a kennelmaid at all, but as a domestic maid. One unhappy father complained that a “lady” had written to a friend of his daughter to say that “the girl was to do kennel work, exercising … housework, [and] have no salary.” His own daughter had “just been offered a job where she would be required, in addition, to do housework, some cooking, ‘help’ with two children, take an interest in chickens, ‘help’ with washing, for a maid’s wage of £1 per week! … And one knows what the ‘helping’ means; one ends up doing everything.” [note: 'A Lover of Dogs and Fair Play to Our Dogs, “The Training of Kennelmaids,” Our Dogs, no. 111 (27 May 1938): 684.']' (307)

Cited by Kennelmaid to Our Dogs, 'The Training of Kennelmaids', Our Dogs (3rd June 1938), p. 771.
Description:

'Sir,- May I heartily endorse the letter published in your issue of May 27, written by “A Lover of Dogs and of Fair Play.” I have myself experienced the same conditions as the daughter of your correspondent, and think it is high time that a union of some sort was formed.'