Cites L. Raymond-Mallock to Our Dogs, 'Kennel Pupils', Our Dogs 82 (23rd Jan 1931), p. 213.
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.’