It seems that sooner or later in every discussion about selecting to avoid problems in breeding, some group brings up the either/or argument. It looks something like this:

These comments show a complete lack of understanding of both the discussion and the concept of breeding for the total dog. Yes, we all make compromises in trying to build the ideal dog. Yes, they will all vary in some point or another. The concept is not to pick which PROBLEMS you consider more objectionable, but to select for the ASSETS that are more important.
I really don't want a dog with missing teeth in my breeding program, even though I may not understand all the reasons why nature gave dogs 42 teeth. I also don't want a dog with a bad temperament or front or topline or ..........(fill in some other functional aberration). If I get down to only a choice between a "rock and a hard place," then it is time to rethink the breed or get out.
Luckily, Labradors are a plentiful breed. There are good ones all around the world. We can pick and choose among those with desirable assets and sift those with the more glaring flaws to the bottom of the breeding bin. We should never HAVE to choose between missing teeth and bad temperament. If those are YOUR only two choices in your breeding program, rethink breeding. Selective breeding is just that - being selective. You have to choose what you include and what to exclude for the future of the breed. It should never devolve to a choice between a rock and a hard place - in breeding or in a discussion.

Not my only two selections but a great temperament will always be one of my top items a Labrador must have. Not if you are talking GS or Dobe, then maybe that can vary but not a Lab, not in my book. Not for sure what you are saying. Maybe if someone ask this to you about their breeding program,they don't want missing teeth, I don't and they want to make sure about temperaments and all else is pretty good with the girl they want to breed.

Guess I wasn't clear. In most discussions about problems, someone always has to belittle the topic by saying something like, "I'd rather have a dog with X than one with Y." That is NEVER the point of the discussion and belittles the exchange. If breeding came to the choice of only having dogs with X or Y, then we have destroyed the breed. While we all have a set of priorities, a discussion about PRA or EIC or missing teeth or whatever is NEVER enhanced by a silly comment about the choice between a "rock and a hard place."

Galen, I think it is totally AWESOME that YOU have obviously perfect dogs! AWESOME, AWESOME, AWESOME! You Rock!

Thank you for your support. They aren't perfect, but many parts are excellent

I am grateful for the perspectives you've brought to this discussion, Galen. I got three interesting ideas from the teeth discussion, in addition to the perspectives I got from my friend the Dobe breeder who first stimulated me to think about teeth in ways that I had previously not done.

Although it may seem like commonsense that anyone could see, I really hadn't thought much about the fact that Nature had given dogs 42 teeth and that animal husbandry respects Nature. Yes, I knew that. But I was focused so much on The Standard and the issues involved in judging to the The Standard, I lost track of the normalcy of 42 teeth. So thanks much for joining the discussion and adding your perspective.

Janis also brought up something interesting about teeth being present but not erupted. I hadn't really thought about that possibility. When I asked her, my friend the Dobe breeder also had not considered this possibility. She hasn't personally seen this happen, but she's now asking her friends about it. They are evidently doing more x-rays of teeth than we are so I am eager to hear their results.

Hildur contributed an example of two dogs with missing teeth producing offspring with teeth. My Dobe breeder friend was also quite interested in this example and will be seeing if she can find any other examples in her breed.

So overall I was happy with the teeth discussion even though I heard a lot of the same old ideas supported by the "rock and a hard place" type arguments that you described so well and people resorting to name calling because they had nothing else to add. I got three different possibilities added to my consideration of teeth. Good enough. And I think some people might be considering the notion that Dobes might give us some useful perspectives. I hope so.

I believe that most breeders are quite thoughtful about their choices, as breeder181 said so well, and do not block new perspectives--because its also about having enough information to make good choices. A lot of reasonable people are afraid to post here because of the bullies who abuse anonymity. I hate that. I wish we could share more freely. But I take what I can get. I usually figure I will hear enough good information here to make it worth my while to open a conversation. I appreciate the widening perspectives I got from this and many other discussions. So thanks for your excellent contributions.

Thank you for your comments. The posting name of "Galen" was chosen to represent an overall guiding principle - First, do no harm. This is a simple and far-reaching concept for those of us whose choices affect so many lives, both canine and human.

Yes, I suspected as much from your name. KF

Another way to look at this is to say "for this breeding decision I need to prioritize on..." The art of breeding needs to be a balancing act where we, as breeders, learn to shift our positions constantly, while minimizing our risks. This is why tests for autosomal recessive traits (i.e. cnm, eic, pra, etc) are so useful. We can play with carriers, clears and affecteds, and use the knowns to balance when we have to put more importance on things like hips, elbows, allergies, and teeth or any mulifactorial trait. I truly believe that in a good breeding program, one can never truly say I prioritize this over that categorically. Each dog and bitch brings something different to the table, and how many times do we get totally surprised by what turns up in the get - with respect to health, structure, type, temperament--everything. A whole new deck of cards...

Kudos for Galen to post on the irrelevance of such absolutes when it comes to breeding.

I have been there done that, and I now apologize for my earlier comments on this forum that were of no help to the topic.
I have had my share of missing teeth problems with dogs that I have purchased from other breeders. It has caused me to be a "tooth fairy" and sometimes I can't get past it...even if the dog is nearly perfect, if it's missing teeth, it's outta here! I have gotten lovely pedigrees, who have all their teeth, and you move along with the pup with beautiful conformation, all their teeth, excellent movement...and BAM, they fail eyes with cataracts in both eyes! AND a bad elbow or hip! So to me, if the grand sceme of things, I will take a missing tooth over any of that other stuff. I can easily place a dog with missing teeth, including selling it, over having to place a dog that I had to pay for surgery to fix that elbow, and GIVE it away because it was the right thing to do, knowing and disclosing, that it may need eye surgery in the future. (plus spay/neuter before it leaves my house). Now, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and yes, i check teeth like a freak! but...to me, it's not totally the end all be all. I have a dog with every A+ clearance, including excellent elbows...lovely movement...but missing some pre-molars, and I cant bring myself to use him because of that. I feel the biggest problem is the breeders who "hide" the truth...and that is forever going to plague our breed. So, sorry Galen for jumping on you, I hope you accept my apology,and my apology to this forum for acting immature. Good day.

This is the cardinal violation to the "do no harm" philosophy. To err is human. To cover it up, blame others or sabbotage the unsuspecting spreads damage to all involved. Thanks for your comments and I hope you never have to choose between that rock and hard place

I'd like to raise a toast: Hope none of us are to be found "between the rock and the hard place", but if so, may judicious decision making with careful planning help us move that rock.

This whole thread makes me feel as if I am in Never Never Land. I have been breeding for 27 years and almost never have I found a stud dog that had everything I wanted. As someone who cares about the working ability of my dogs as well as the health and conformation, I find myself between a rock and a hard place every time I breed. I always have to compromise and accept something I don't really want. I will not compromise on orthopedic problems or genetic diseases (I don't consider using carriers with clears a compromise as i know all the dogs will be healthy). Then conformational soundness and balance and temperament, then some proof of working ability, and finally I look for the things I need to improve conformation. One or two missing teeth is way down that list. To my mind, whenever we have a discussion of the importance of such a characteristic, we ALWAYS have to realize that we are prioritizing and that if we are saying one characteristic is of overwhelming importance, we are saying that we are ranking it higher than other things, because we always have to choose.

My ideas of what does the breed harm may be more far reaching than Galen's. I believe that conformation breeders who don't care about the working ability of their dogs are doing the breed harm. I believe that people who breed for what is currently winning without regarding the physical traits that allow the dogs to work best in the field are doing the breed harm. Certainly people who don't care about a docile, trainable temperament are doing the breed harm. I also care about doing no harm to my puppy buyers, which means producing dogs with no avoidable health problems and with personalities that are easy to live with. I challenge anyone to give proof that either a dog or the people who own it are harmed by having a missing tooth - other than in the show ring.

how many teeth would have to be missing for you to consider them a problem?

Peggy, I certainly respect the desire to produce dogs who have excellent and biddable natures. I also compete in performance sports and place puppies with families for whom temperament and health are top priorities. And I look long and hard for the right stud dogs.

I don't think we are talking about one missing tooth or even two. I've produced offspring missing a few teeth by breeding two parents with full dentition. And, you are correct in saying that the puppies did just fine in their homes. I was the only one affected by the missing teeth because I couldn't figure out what to do about showing and/or breeding the beautiful ones who were missing just a few tiny teeth.

We don't know the mode of transmission of missing teeth, and we do have evidence from multiple other breeds that missing teeth can become a significant issue over time--with many teeth missing. We are not talking about something breed specific. 42 teeth are the number of teeth expected for all breeds (including mutts) and the primary purpose of teeth is eating in all those breeds, which is a fairly fundamental purpose.

No one I know is breeding to reduce the number of teeth in a dog's mouth. So missing teeth are an undesired and unintentional consequence of breeding for some other characteristic.

I doubt that the genetics of missing teeth is as simple as breeding for a certain head configuration or a certain function. Unexpected associations can occur in genetics. For example, breeding only for tameness in foxes, researchers produced foxes with dropped ears, wagging tails, and piebald coats.

So who the heck knows why we are getting missing teeth or where it all will lead? I'm sure not liking what I am seeing in other breeds, now that I have started looking. Like you, I am really concerned about temperament, biddability, and health (particularly orthopedic health), but my consciousness has been raised by my Dobe breeder friend about the problems that *might* lie on our horizon regarding teeth.

In Chinese Crested, somehow the genes for teeth and coat are linked. Talk to any Crested breeder and you will begin to better understand the "Law of Unintended Consequences." When we start dabbling with nature for our own purposes, we have to be aware that changing one thing that may seem insignificant to us can alter other systems that might make a big difference down the line. As breeders, we all "dabble" in building our ideal dog. We just have to be wary and vigilant for those unintended consequences.

Actually, Kate, I have been told that some British breeders were deliberately breeding dogs with missing teeth because they felt that the dogs were softer mouthed. I don't know for sure if it is true or not, but that is what I was told.

"how many teeth would have to be missing for you to consider them a problem?"

Galen seems to think one or two is a problem. I don't. And I have had puppies with full dentition out of a girl with 6 missing teeth. Remember that there are four sides to the jaw, so she still had most of her premolars. Obviously you wouldn't want to double up on that, and in that line I do look for full dentition in prospective stud dogs, but one of her litters produced the best performance dogs (running in MH, obedience titles with placements) I've ever bred with good breed type (pointed with specialty placements) and great temperaments. Oh, yes, and full dentition! My other line doesn't have missing teeth, and I would be quite happy to breed to a Ch MH who was missing teeth if everything else were what i wanted.

Peggy, I appreciate your openness in discussing this issue and your experience with missing teeth. Only by open discourse can we really make informed decisions.

The information about British breeders deliberately producing missing teeth does not match my own experience. I'm a bit of a Doubting Thomas because people can be very clever in developing post hoc rationales.

Because of the difficulty predicting if a dog or bitch might "carry" missing teeth and because we often only know the particular stud dog's teeth (rather than his whole litter's dentition status), I've decided to do lots more exploration of the pedigree regarding missing teeth of a possible stud dog. At this point in my decision-making, I am sufficiently worried that I don't think that there would be a dog so wonderful in other ways that I would breed to a dog with missing teeth. Fortunately, I have found dogs I want to use so far.

Good Lord A'mighty - first we have Dobes and their issues/backgrounds, now we have Chinese Cresteds. What's next - a discussion of short muzzles which will eventually include comparisons to Bulldogs and associated whelping problems?

Am I the only one here that is fairly certain from this as well as EXTREMELY similar tone and style that Kate and Galen are either twin siblings or actually one and the same person????

I've ignored most of it since poster 2 entered be it Galen, Conrad or Bill W. It's a set up. I would rather discuss a better Lab topic than *their* opinions whoever they are. It's redundant, non-Lab silliness once again, thanks again Highway Kate.

There is nothing wrong with learning about other breeds. That is precisely what the old breeders (I'm not that old) used to do when attending dog shows rather than today's trends of leaving the show grounds as soon as your dog's class is over. Way back in the "old days", they would even stay for Group, talk to other breeders of other breeds, sit and watch handlers groom their dogs and learn a heck of a lot more than we are able to these days on the internet lists. There is nothing wrong if someone wants to take an interest in teeth or eye color or one of a hundred other interests they may have. The rest of us don't have to if we don't want to but why bash someone who does? We all still have a lot to learn. How we use that information is the key to success or failure.

I feel we have enough to worry about in our own breed and it's not a missing tooth. JMHO.

It's sad to see the mess made of a couple of other breeds. It's so sad that I don't want to know much more about them. Defective brains, hearts, orthopedics, eyes, temperament towards dogs & humans + + + +. I'm fearful we're headed that way when some breeders don't care about clearances because they're *only tools*.

To them, it's all about winning and screw the puppies, dogs and buyers that are sometimes affected by the lack of concern for health. Form letters suffice for the lack of clearances claimed when a dog has something that could have been prevented.

If you want to learn about other breeds you're certainly entitled to. I don't want it stuffed down my throat on a Labby list.

I totally agree. But doing it on a Lab forum (which is what this is supposed to be) is like learning about the Catholic faith by bringing it up at a Baptist revival.


Well, I am one of those old breeders. Depending on how far back you are talking about I could just say times were different. If we traveled to shows we usually stayed. Not only that, we watched obedience. I had the chance to see one of the great Goldens of all time score 200 in Open B three days in a row. But if we were close to home we usually went home unless one of our friends went to Group. Watching handlers groom their dogs? Hardly ever....

Since you have already admitted to not being all that old, I would suggest not getting your information from people whose level of knowledge and whose perspective on our breed may not be quite what they are holding it out to be. These/this person fits exactly that and no one who intends to be in this breed seriously over a long term should consider this nonsense as important or knowledgeable - neither one. Their/her sense of self-importance is rivaled by few and surpassed by none.

Breed standards cover what is important for that breed. It is assumed, breeders understand what a good generic dog is. It is the responsibility of all good breeders to understand generic bone structure and movement. It is fascinating to compare different breeds and the differences and similarities with form and function.

There are many winning Labradors out there who are not nice dogs. I know the type vs. structure argument has been beaten to death. But, it is hard too imagine someone would be negative about the concept of learning from other breeds.

How the heck can this be "stuffed down your throat"? That has to be among the more ridiculous things I have ever read. You've taken the time to read it. You've taken the time to write a response.

Am I the only one here that is fairly certain from this as well as EXTREMELY similar tone and style that Kate and Galen are either twin siblings or actually one and the same person?
******************************************************
Hate to burst your bubble 'What Ever', you are wrong. Definitely 2 different people.

I've ignored most of it since poster 2 entered be it Galen, Conrad or Bill W. It's a set up. I would rather discuss a better Lab topic than *their* opinions whoever they are. It's redundant, non-Lab silliness once again, thanks again Highway Kate.
****************************************************
But you keep coming back YUP, otherwise you would not be posting irrelevant, off (non) topic comments.

I wonder how people are defining "old timers". I have been in the breed for 20 years now. I refer to old timers as the people who were in the breed 20+ years when I started. Think about it...someone starts when they are 25 and has been doing it for 40 years...they are only 65 now.

It is unbelievable the people who have been doing this for 10 years and think they are remotely experienced. Furthermore, more directly relevant to this discussion, many old timers started in other breeds, have handled other breeds, are great friends with people who breed other breeds, have moved on to other breeds, and/or are horse people. If you want to really learn about structure and function, talk to a real old-timer horse person.

You aren't trying to breed Champion Master hunters!

Bless you, Peggy....

ends justify means

This is the perfect example of why all the nit wits that think they can eradicate PRA/EIC/(name your disease here) by only breeding clears/noncarriers are in for a rude awakening. That practice is a huge rookie move.

I don't know of anyone whose intent is to eradicate a disease (having only clears in the gene pool)- most people I know are breeding to avoid producing affected puppies, and we have tools that enable us to do so. Given the breadth of the Labrador gene pool, there is no reason to produce an EIC/PRA/CNM affected dog ever again - always including a clear in the breeding pair is not going to destroy type in the gene pool. One of the worst things for the gene pool is popular sire syndrome, and we have seen very heavy use of certain dogs in recent years - it is getting hard not to find them in a pedigree, and no matter how nice their type, some of them are ones I would not want in a pedigree, especially not 3 or 4 times.