Conformation dog with P1 missing? - Page 2

The dog is 9 months old now, I don't think it will come through, but I will take a further look into it. Maybe its super small?? Or maybe it is under the gum, who knows, I just wanted to know how this would affect the show rating, IMO he should rate a V but will he rate SG because of this????

Why don't you get the gum x-rayed????

 oso .. as long as the dog is bred .. the gene perpetuates.. you make a point .. a small flaw , e.g a white spot on a toe .. yes .. that is not consequential .. but .. but .. semantics here : a dog missing a tooth is not a small flaw ... nor are ears that don't go up !! It is a defect ..not a flaw .. a defect !! i know some SV judges that will not breed a GSD with a missing tooth . case in point .. why does one think that on Pink SV Pedigree papers there is almost a whole page  DEDICATED TO THE DOG'S DENTITION ?? maybe .. JUST MAYBE .. the TEETH ARE IMPORTANT !!  your logic is faulty .. the gene will be passed on and someone's GSD will be missing a tooth . maybe someone that paid quite a sum for a show GSD  or who wants to do sch .. with a dog with a missing tooth . NOTE .. I am not critisizing you personally ... but the CONCEPT .. you are aware in the past the ongoings like : dying the GSD red ? uprighting ears , doctoring x-raYS AND PHOTO'S , GIVING STEROIDS , manipulating muscles .eg. tail position ..  ETC ETC. .." WELL  I AM ONLY CORRECTING A MINOR FLAW mentality !!- I'll breed to another male and all of a sudden the GSD will be fine again " -- we all : let our conscience be our guide !!

Yes I was thinking of taking the dog to my vet and have it xrayed to see exactly if there is something there or not. Good idea!

 In reply to Alphapup:

One missing tooth is considered a minor fault, which is why these dogs are able to get kkl2 and can be bred. More than one missing tooth is more serious, and an overbite problem more serous still...

Whereas ears that do not stand up is a serious fault - these dogs cannot be titled or bred.

Soft ears?  well, that is more of a grey area.........

As for the genetics I do not think we know exactly how this is transmitted, whether non affected offspring can pass this characteristic or not.  In the case of my dog and her two affected puppies this problem showed up early with the milk teeth so I would never have sold one of these as a show prospect. The proportion of puppies affected has been low.  Long coat was once considered a disqualifying fault, but I do not think any breeder has tried to eliminate this gene by not breeding from any dog who could potentially pass it on, it would simply be a waste of good dogs and the consequences are not serious enough to worry about.

I know for a fact that along with all the other cheating mentioned by Alphapup, there are people who manage to get false veterinary certificates stating that the missing tooth was once present, this was even once suggested to me as an option, but  I have nothing to gain by cheating as I would be deceiving myself as well as others, I have never tried to hide this.

Going back to the OP I notice that its a male, so that is more of a problem - if this dog became a popular stud far more dogs could be affected than in the case of a female who has relatively few puppies in her lifetime, but more than likely the male with only kkl2 will not be used.  If the dog was bought as a show and or breeding prospect, yes he will be affected.

Well anyway its a good idea to do the X-ray just in case the tooth is hiding in there somewhere, but I do not know if an X-ray would be acceptable to a judge if the tooth never appears on the surface??

 ' one missing tooth is considered a minor flaw " ___ WHO CARES !! it is a  defect !! CANIDS should have a full complement of teeth .. that is what nature gave them .. -- reminds me of an SV judge that i knew who  once spoke of  for crowded teeth on a GSD in our presence that the owner do orthodontic treatment  for the dog !! Please >>>> .. who cares what the book states .. big deal you can get and some here are the Serious GSD people ?? you have to be kidding me .. in this case .. i just waste by breath in commentary .. again .. each to thier conscience .. i breed .. i would never ever THINK of breeding a dog with a missing tooth ..  Que sera sera , si vous plait.. 

I agree with Alphapup - breeding dogs with missing teeth will, if genetic and not through an accident or late blooming, change the breed's genetic info and shape of mouth and face in the long term. If you just want to show your dog for fun, why not, but you certainly wouldn't and shouldn't receive a V (in case you titled your dog) or SG, even if the dog is "beautiful". A GSD is a multi-purpose dog and shouldn't be bred only for looks.

 You can get SG, not V.   Breeding these dogs will not "change the breeds genetic info and shape of face" in the long term - to do this you would have to actively select to breed dogs like this together, then select the offspring that have the same problem and breed them together, then after several generations you may get one tooth missing as "standard"  Even then the shape of the mouth would not be altered, because dogs with one missing tooth do not have different shaped mouths (and the ability to bite a sleeve is not affected either).  And no one is even considering doing this anyway!  The only thing you are doing that some breeders (though not the SV) may consider wrong,  is not deliberately  eliminating the characteristic from the gene pool.  But to do this is horrendously difficult anyway.  Missing p1 is actually quite common (missing incisor less so). To eliminate it you would also have to not allow known producers of this fault to breed, even if they themselves, and the vast majority of their offspring, had perfect dentition (which is usually the case), its just not going to happen....

The SV permits breeding with these dogs because the fault is not serious and if individuals with this fault posses other qualities that can contribute positively to the breed these might outweigh the disadvantage of slightly less than perfect dentition. The decision to breed or not should depend to a large extent on the overall quality of the dogs concerned. 

oso .. you don't eliminate the gene .. and .. like some of my friends .. always thinking what can't be done instead of what can be done !!.. of course not !! just breed the dog .. keep the gene in the gene pool .. just like ears .. i heard about 30% of ears in a country did not go up this year.. IMO -- that is a dire disgrace for a gsd to not have both ears up .. BUT .. those that may be carriers of the trait .. and the relatives .. are obviously bred .. that is your logic too. and .. if you think because the SV ok's something that makes it right .. OH my God .. do you have a lot, a hell of a lot to learn about the GSD and the real worl[ and IMO the SV]. now rumor has it .. and the name left out intentionally , that there is a world seiger that throws soft ears / non erect ears.. well what is one criteria for becoming world seiger ? ..the produced offspring .. yup .. he produced ..BUT now, NO ONE saw { all the pups] with soft ears / non erect ears , did they huh ?? .. yet he became world sieger !! the experienced well versed breeders know darn well what i am taking about here !! in any logics course .. you can justify and make a rationalization for anything .. the Romans could convince you without a flaw .. a pink elephant stood in front of you / without a rebutle .. again .. not a personal gripe hear.. not my place to tell anyone what to do .. but as stated ... this line of thinking is why so many detriments currently exist in the GSD !! so that for those reading the posts .. when you want a GSD .. buyer beware !! you can thank goodness oso .. i won't opine after this post.

ALPHAPUP
Please calm down. You obviously  have good intentions, but you are confused on more then one level.  For example heart murmur, as you properly say, is usually  congenital defect. But congenital defect is not equal to genetic defect. Thus it is usually not hereditary.
Also:
Standard says that P1 missing is a minor fault. I do not know what you mean when you say that it is not a "fault" but it is a "defect" . That is since "fault" and "defect" is the same thing. Look it up. These words are synonymous.
There is a reason why  missing P1 it is only a  minor fault and not major fault or disqualifying fault. And you should care what SV says since there is a reason why they are saying it. And "they" know probably much more then you do.  The reason is that there are more important problems which are  major faults and disqualifying faults which needs to be eliminated first.  There are no perfect dogs and thus to breed dogs means to compromise. If you are not willing to compromise, then you are not willing to breed. 
When you breed you need to strive for perfection (which is not achievable), but you must not be purist  or be  obsessed with one problem to the point that you do not see other more important problems. To say that you must never breed a dog with P1 missing defies such logic.  
Prager Hans
http://www.alpinek9.com