A great deal of my concern about breeding Labs who have missing teeth has come from my friendship with a Dobe breeder. She has shared a lot of her heartache about producing Dobes both with missing and with extra teeth. My friend has described to me a dog who was missing all upper pre-molars as well as two lower pre-molars. She also described extra teeth which caused other pre-molars to be crowded and to be smaller. She x-rays the mouths of puppies she is considering keeping to see if they will have proper dentition.

The Dobe AKC Standard is more strongly written than the Lab standard because of the great difficulties Dobes are having with teeth. In addition to missing and extra molars, Dobes have rotation of teeth that do not have the support provided by full dentition.

The AKC Standard for Dobes states:

Teeth strongly developed and white. Lower incisors upright and touching inside of upper incisors a true scissors bite. 42 correctly placed teeth, 22 in the lower, 20 in the upper jaw. Distemper teeth shall not be penalized.

Disqualifying Faults: Overshot more than 3/16 of an inch. Undershot more than 1/8 of an inch. Four or more missing teeth.

My friend says that the European standards call for disqualification for any missing teeth.

After listening to my friend, I really haven't been able to shake out of my mind the possibility that missing teeth (and extra teeth?) might become as big a problem for Labs as it is for Dobes if people view missing teeth as a minor issue unworthy of breeding concern.

This is just my opinion, but I like teeth. I want my dogs to have all of them. I ask when I pick a stud if he has all his teeth. When my pups grow up, they end up with all their teeth.

Yes, I do realize that it's hard enough as it is to get that perfect dog to show and win in the ring, but a dog is supposed to have his teeth.

I am sure the curse of "someday it will happen to you" will come down on me and my best pup will be missing teeth, but until then I will stick to my idea that we should be a little more picky about making sure our dogs have their teeth.

My vet took a class on dog dentistry and came back with some interesting things.

One was that some teeth are there, but they just do not break through the surface of the mouth. In some breeds this is quite common and the gums have to be cut to let the teeth erupt. I do not remember the breeds at the moment.

I have a dog that is missing a tooth - pre-molar, and the next time he has to go under for anything, my vet is going to x-ray his mouth to see if the tooth is there.

Has your Dobie friend ever x-rayed and found all the teeth and then not had one erupt?

JanisG

If you were trapped in a dream, and the tooth fairy, the heart fairy, the eye fairy, the hip and elbow fairy, the coat fairy, the temperament fairy, the head fairy, the tail fairy, the bone fairy, the undescended testicle fairy, the movement fairy, and the stick straight front and rear fairy were all trying to ruin your dog - which of these fairies should you really be afraid of? You need to think this over.... except for the undescended testicle fairy carrying a disqualification, the tooth fairy is the only one considered to be a serious fault under the standard. Does this really sound right to you???

Form follows function. Dobes were originally bred for guard work, where a bad grip could mean the difference between life and death for the handler.
I don't think comparing Labs to Dobes is comparing apples to apples.

Kate, maybe you wouldn't have so much trouble shaking this out of your mind if your mind were a bit more open. This is one of the more ridiculous and intellectually dishonest arguments I have seen come from you. In the three threads that we now have going on regarding teeth, I don't recall any one saying that teeth are a minor issue unworthy of breeding concern. But for it to rise to the top considering all of the other issues that breeders need to deal with it's - well, just not as important. Full dentition on a dog without proper coat, who can't move or retrieve, whose heart gurgles like a drain, or with a foul temperament just doesn't work for me. And it shouldn't for you, either. I'll ask a stud owner about teeth if I don't know already, but it will be quite a way down the list and if the other answers aren't there I won't get to it. At that point, it just won't matter.

What ever happened to the concept of "First, do no harm"? Isn't that why we select for sound joints, strong hearts, etc.? First, our dogs should be NORMAL in the important details that lead to a long, healthy life so they can be great companions and partners with humans. Having 42 teeth is just part of being NORMAL - like having all the vertebrae, digits, etc. Our standard does not fault a dog with three or five toes, but we ALL know that four is NORMAL. Too few or too many toes may not seriously affect the dog's ability to retrieve, but it certainly is not NORMAL. It may lead to undue leg and joint stress or problems with other body functions that we just don't understand. It should not be ignored any more than too few or too many teeth.

We get so caught up in all the little "details" of type that we forget there is a reason why canids have a certain number of bones and teeth. It is for THEIR function and overall health of the species. Let's not sacrifice those specifications just because WE don't understand their importance in OUR use of the dog.

Hi Janis, I will ask her. I think she has found that a puppy would not have full dentition and decided not to keep the puppy. But i don't know if all teeth erupted if found found on xray. KF

I have had a dog that had to have a molar extracted, one that is missing an incisor because the baby canine became infected and the infection damaged the bud from which the adult incisor would have developed, and several that had missing premolars from presumably hereditary conditions. None of them were affected health-wise. That's a red herring. When bred they have produced offspring with full dentition. So breeding a dog with missing teeth does not doom you to a future of more and more missing teeth even if, as happened to me in an unplanned breeding that took place while I was away from home, two dogs are bred that both had missing teeth. Some of the offspring had full dentition. The pups were sired by a Golden retriever, so none of them were ever bred, so I don't know what would have happened in the next generation.

As another poster had stated, Dobermans are a protection breed, and teeth are important to the function of the breed. Teeth also are important for a retriever. I work most of my dogs in the field; missing teeth do not affect their ability to retrieve. The dog who has had the most problems with bird handling has full dentition. His rather short, broad muzzle, unique to my dogs but often rewarded at specialties, appears to be more of a problem for him in bird handling. I'm not saying that we should ignore missing teeth, but I would discard a dog for lack of retrieving drive, poor coat texture and overly long coats, overly short legs, and a host of other things currently being rewarded by specialty wins before I'd discard it because it is missing teeth. I can see why it would be a problem in a protection breed, but a few missing teeth do not affect the function of a Lab.

+

The presumed mode of inheritance by Dobe breeders is recessive. My friend has described breeding two full dentition dogs and getting missing teeth in the offspring. If the mode of inheritance is recessive, getting offspring with full dentition by breeding two with missing teeth would not be possible.

Recessive doesn't seem enough of an explanation to me, especially given that extra teeth are also a possibility and you might get one missing tooth or multiple missing teeth in the same litter.

My good friend bred her bitch who was missing 2 teeth to a male who also was missing 2 teeth. She had 8 puppies and I have seen many of those puppies and all of those I have seen have all their teeth.

I have a question. Are you always 100% sure when you breed 2 dogs both with full dentition that all the puppies will have all their teeth?

The answer is, 100% no assurance.

If the mode of inheritance is recessive (?) and you bred two dogs with full dentition who carried the recessive gene for missing teeth, you could get offspring who were clear and did not carry the gene, offspring who were missing teeth, and offspring who had full dentition but carried the gene.

I was thinking about your example and also Janis' question about teeth that were in the jaw but didn't erupt so that you could see them. So I wondered if the two situations might be related--the sire and dam might appear to be missing teeth but actually have the teeth in the jaw and therefore able to produce offspring with full dentition.

You're right on; in my humble opinion. In BIOL101 10 years ago, I learned *function precedes form* which is technically the same as *form follows function*.

It's silly to compare these two breeds. Especially when the type of work the mouth and teeth were originally meant for is the topic.

Thanks for your well explained opinion. It makes a great deal of sense *Ex Dobe Breeder*

Galen, I don't think anyone is promoting doing harm to the breed. I am simply pointing out that there is a significant difference in the purposes for which these two breeds were developed. Those differences result in variances in what would be considered standard equipment between these two breeds. I wouldn't want a Dobe with a soft Lab expression or a Lab with the sharp alert expression of a Dobe.
I also don't believe anyone is sacrificing specifications for our own purpose. The stated purpose of the Lab is as a primarily water retriever. That stated function drives (or should drive) their structure, their temperament, and what health issues get moved to the top of the list.
That is not to say that full dentition is off the list, just that there are far more important issues at the top.
Teeth were always at the top of the list with Dobes: at least as far back as I can remember and I got my first Dobe in the early 70's. Using what has happened in that breed as an example of what could happen in this breed is a mis-statement of the facts and a false premise for comparison.

I certainly can imagine that a mutation might occur in one breed and not in another breed causing missing teeth. And maybe that has happened. If so, evidently mutations may have occurred in other breeds because Dobes aren't the only breed known for problems with missing teeth.

The notion of form and function doesn't hold much weight with me as an explanation of missing teeth. All other functions of teeth for which we may breed the dog pale by comparison to the use in eating. In fact, tonight we got a new shipment of bones and all of mine are lying on Kuranda beds contentedly and vigorously gnawing them. I would sure hate to see mine missing a lot of pre-molars; they seem to enjoy using them.

Apparently Dobe breeders have been concerned about missing teeth much longer than Lab breeders. My friend tells me that missing teeth were mentioned in the American Dobe standard as far back as the 1920s. And perhaps their concern stems at least partly from the uses of Dobes in protection. But it may also be that they have been facing the problem for longer than we have and see more of the long term consequences of any mutation that may have occurred. I don't know. I'm just wondering and guessing.

I can see why you would not want Dobes to be missing teeth....considering that they are working dogs used as guardians....They probably started missing teeth to achieve that really sharp muzzle...Having had collies we experienced that. To achieve the really streamlined muzzle, you could end up with missing molars....I had a male that really only had front teeth...no molars. I guess that was from his lines...I don't know...Now with labs...I don't know why it would make any difference...I guess a lab could retrieve a duck with NO teeth I know an extreme example, but we don't want a streamlined muzzle..so no one is breeding for that trait...right?????

You are entitled to think whatever is convenient to justify your position. That doesn't change the FACT that it is NORMAL for canids to have 42 teeth. Whether we as manipulators of the breeds understand or accept the reason for that does not alter the facts. We mold the breeds to fit OUR purposes, but leaving them with all the parts and pieces they were endowed with by nature should be a no-brainer choice.

So, neutering is wrong?

Ideally, yes. Unfortunately, most owners don't want or won't accept the responsibility.

Comparing the planned removal of reproductive organs for good purpose to the unintended loss of teeth in the process of breeding for appearance seems quite a stretch to discount the point made by Galen about the normalcy of 42 teeth.

Thanks for your commonsense, Galen.

I see you haven't changed. More of the condescending crap that got your a** booted from the "other" forum some time ago. Why am I not surprised that you would go find a group who will listen to your drivel without applying a shred of critical thinking?

That puts her way ahead of those whose "critical" drivel isn't even worth hearing.

Why are 2 of you causing such a ruckus?

Galen, do you believe if a Labrador has 41 teeth it shouldn't be shown or reproduce? I'm not understanding the points you're attempting to make.

So elaborate Galen. I said Galen, not Kate. I'm curious to try to understand where Galen is taking this.

I am saying that what is natural and normal in the way of body parts, etc. should not be lightly disregarded. Should a dog with 41 teeth NEVER be shown or bred? It depends on the rest of the dog. Should a dog with 41 teeth be bred when one of similar value with 42 teeth is available? Probably not. All purebred canines are the result of selective breeding. We need to be more selective about what we include AND what we leave out.

Just because teeth are not of great importance to the humans who use the dogs for hunting doesn't mean that the teeth are not of significant importance to the dogs and their long-term health. Nature and evolution gave them 42 teeth for a reason - even if WE HUMANS don't know or understand what that is. Respect for nature is one of the primary foundations of animal husbandry.

AMEN!

I think I understand. So Galen, if a person, male or female cannot reproduce, or they need to wear glasses, or they needed braces, or have one leg slightly shorter than the other, etc. they should be shot? Right? Ok, well, not shot, but neutered/spayed. Just want to make sure I'm getting where your coming from. Your argument is non-sense. jmo.

When you stoop to attacking the messenger you have lost the debate.

Maybe you don't "get it" because you don't actually read what others post. Nobody mentioned eugenics in this discussion. Nobody even mentioned humans except to question their motives. Nobody mentioned spaying or neutering except to question if leaving a dog intact might be preferable to altering its endocrine system. Those who selectively CONTROL which animals are bred together have some responsibility to those animals, their offspring in perpetuity and all the humans whose lives they touch. Having a little respect for nature and evolution would seem to provide a reasonable starting point for making those selections.

You are wrong here. Neutering makes happier dogs. An intact male needs to mate. How often will a pet breed? or better thought, should a pet be bred? It is not only about taking care that the dog doesn't jump the fence. it is about the dog no having the need to mate.

That is what makes it more suitable for US - the humans in the equation. We choose to surgically remove that drive for our own convenience. However, is the dog REALLY happier? It may be more compliant, but at what expense? Altering the endocrine system by removal of the reproductive glands has far reaching ramifications in the physiology of the dog. Read some of the more recent laboratory studies on the health complications from early neutering. I would not be so "rude" as to say you are completely "wrong" - but science and nature support the position that a functional endocrine system has long-term benefits.

We humans just have to practice better pack management and establish our position as Alpha to accommodate living with intact dogs. As I said initially, most owners won't take the responsibility. The "easy" answer is to change the entire hormonal system of an animal rather than be inconvenienced by its natural development.

Galen, your only reasoning is to start with a perfect dog. You, must have perfect dogs.

Currently I am living with four very unhappy unneutered male dogs because I have a bitch in season that they are not being allowed to breed. That's unnatural, too.

"Natural" isn't always better. It is natural for dogs to be infested with all sorts of internal and external parasites and to die once they become injured as they hunt large game. Loss of body parts that aren't essential is also natural. A wolf has the same number of teeth, but they are much larger than those of a dog. Natural selection is working on organisms all the time. Cave fish lose there eyes because they don't need them, birds have lost all but two of the digits in their forelimbs, canids have severely reduced thumbs on the forelimbs and have lost them on the hind limbs. Natural selection does not create perfect creatures, only ones that can survive. Galen, I don't know how long you've been breeding dogs, if you are indeed a breeder, but I do know that your knowledge of biology is not profound.

Really? So everyone who doesn't let their stud dogs breed every single time a bitch comes into season doesn't know what they are doing? They are bad owners. COME ON!!!!

I think that's their point. That nature is always "fiddled with" when talking dogs.

Personally a few missing teeth doesn't bother me in the least. Labs are not dobes. Although my 12 that I've bought/bred all have full dentition. I wouldn't bat an eye if one of my pups had missing teeth. I'd show her and breed her without hesitation.

Again I'll say.....Labs are not Dobes.

Apples/Oranges

Dobes aren't the only breed with lots of missing teeth.

In canid packs, generally the alpha male is the only one that mates. The other males in the pack are in the same boat as your four boys. We assume they are "unhappy" because their mating drive has to be thwarted. It is the price they pay for being part of the pack and most will forego breeding to stay a member of the social pack. As the alphas in our own interspecies pack, we have to make the benefits of being in the social group rewarding enough to offset the inconvenience of not mating.

Jesus effing Christ... will you give it up already????