Cited by A Kennelmaid to Our Dogs, 'Kennel Pupils', Our Dogs 82 (30th Jan. 1931), p. 282.
Description:

‘Sir,- I feel it is my duty, as a kennelmaid, to reply to the somewhat disparaging letters on ‘kennel pupils’ published in your issue of Jan. 23. If you would allow me, I should like to say a few words in our defence.

Your correspondent who has had some experience with kennelmaids seems to have been very unfortunate; but surely, if she engaged the girls from a training school, and they were not efficient, it is up to her to expose the trainers and not the pupils. Nevertheless, it is not always the kennel owners who are to blame for sending out inefficient workers; they are in duty bound to give all a fair training, and it depends upon the ambitions of the pupils whether they succeed or fail. Those who succeed have a profession of which to be mighty proud; but the remainder, who look upon the work as a pastime, are the ones who bring about all the trouble.

My experience of training kennels must be one of many. As having received six months’ tuition in small Pekingese kennels, my ambition was to get somewhere where things were managed in a big way. So, with a little bluff, and by being perfectly candid and truthful with the owners, I was taken on in large breeding kennels, with the understanding that I had to work! And I must say, with all due respect to my employers, they were all out for enlarging the knowledge and experience of their staff and pupils. We were always present at post-mortems, and I was lucky enough to witness the end of a Caesarean operation. Our questions were willingly answered and out work was criticised, and, under supervision, we took the whelping cases in turn, and held ourselves responsible for the welfare of the bitch and litter – even to docking and dew-clawing! We were also allowed to assist the vet., and hear his views on the different cases.

Wishing all sincere kennelmaids the best of luck for 1931. – Yours, etc.,

A Kennelmaid.’

 

Relevant passage from Raymond-Mallock:

‘Sir,- I have read the letter entitled “Kennel Pupils” and signed “Diehard” in your issue of Jan. 16, and should like to add a few remarks, if I may. I have had some experience of kennelmaids who came to me as being thoroughly trained at big training schools, one girl having passed out first in her class.

The first girl was horrified when I asked her to remove a puppy’s dew claws, and said that where she was trained she had watched the vet. remove them, but could not undertake to do it herself. She knew nothing about scaling a dog’s teeth, no what proportion of peroxide to mix for a mouth wash. She told me that she could give a douche, but did not know how to mix it, and had no idea at all about diagnosing disease or what medicine to give for most common ailments. So much for the first kennelmaid.

The second had the grace to tell me when she arrived that she had had but little experience of whelping, because where she was trained the pupils were never allowed to take a hand themselves: they merely looked on. She had no idea when or how to give pituitrin, nor how to determine the puppy which was too long in birth. She had extraordinary ideas as to the use of boracic acid, and the treatment of wounds. In fact, neither of these girls would have been the smallest of use, yet they had both spent considerable time and money on what they were pleased to call their “training.” Until they came to me I really believe they thought they were competent to undertake the care of dogs.

Up to the present I have always trained my own kennelmaids, and shall continue to do so. – Yours, etc.,

Lillian Raymond-Mallock’

Cited by Diehard to Our Dogs, 'Kennel Pupils', Our Dogs 82 (30th Jan. 1931), p. 282.
Description:

‘Sir,- In my first letter on “Kennel Pupils” I had no intention of “booming” the big kennel for training. There are good and bad in everything, and I am not against either the large or small kennel if they do what they undertake to do. What I am against is the inefficient kennel owner who talks “big” and knows little, and by virtue of their ready “gas” and flowery self-penned articles are promoted to the “lights” of the canine world. Their kennels are a snare and a delusion, for they flood the market with worthless dogs, usually bought cheap and sold at double their value to the poor fools who, knowing nothing of dogs, apply to them for advice or to purchase.

Not content with this, they must advertise for pupils, and, regardless of any responsibility to the girls, accept their money, knowing full well that they are not in a position to teach even the everyday work of a well-run kennel. They are hopelessly at sea if anything goes wrong at whelping or sickness breaks out, and fly for the veterinary surgeon, yet it is often only caused by their own ignorance.

Now, I ask you, “are such people competent to teach?” I say “No,” emphatically, and what is more, they are a curse to the fancy.

Mrs. Raymond Mallock is a wise woman, and it is a pity there are not more breeders like her, for she has proved herself one of our best-known and most successful breeders, and yet knows her “job” sufficiently well to be able to instruct others – in other words she does practice what she preaches!

Personally I am not in favour of handlers, for general training, for although excellent at their own particular branch of work, they are “specialists” rather than “general practitioners.”

Thank you for your complement, “Small Owner,” but you guessed wrong. I am not a man, being merely, yours, etc.

Diehard.’