If you had a genetic map of your dog it wouldn't be marked with "daughter" "uncle" or "grandmother" . . . those are just terms we made up to explain our family relationships. They have no bearing on livestock breeding and therefore it makes no sense to assume that uncle X niece or mother X son can determine the positive or negative outcome of any mating. Words like inbreeding and linebreeding have little, if any, real merit. They merely help us describe things in conversation. If I breed a yellow lab to a yellow spaniel the genes that control coat color are the same and act in the manner that most breeders associate with inbreeding. If I breed, for example, a long legged, gritty, cold nosed Redbone to a Walker who is identical in those departments . . I am in effect inbreeding for those traits, regardless of the fact that the dogs are absolutely unrelated for practical purposes. Historically, less was known about genetics and many superstitions played a greater role.
Obviously, the best source for like genetics (and desirable, similar traits) is in closely related dogs. But selection is the most important factor. If you and I each take a male and a female from one litter and breed them bro X sis for three generations . . we can achieve vastly different results. You pick the darkest colored, poorest performing pups from each of your litters and I'll pick the lightest, best performing pups from mine. On paper the pups will be bred so closely as to seem like clones. In reality . . they are practically unrelated (yours from mine). Selection trumps method of breeding. For the record, culling is but one manner of selection. Keep the best, remove the worst.
Think of your method, whether it be outcrossing, linebreeding or inbreeding . . like a paint brush. They are tools. And in the end, you can not blame the brush for the color that your house ends up. The dogs you have chosen dictate the color.
Another thing (IMO) that bogs some people down is the concept of a breed. Breed has no practical use to a breeder of performance animals. The Blackmouth is a perfect example of this. You have under the heading of breed the Mississippi tree dog variety, The 100 pound Carnathan dogs and the Texas stock dogs. To breed one strain to the other is going backwards for creating similar traits in your dogs. If you breed BMCs and you find a line of Lacys that are of equal size, hunting style, grit, range, etc . . . you are better to breed to that family than to some other family of BMCs that are less similar in trait. A family of bear catching Plotts is going to be closer of trait to a family of bear catching Walkers than they are to many other families of Plott who have been used exclusively as competition coon dogs and may no longer possess the grit or bottom that you desire. Breeds on the whole are irrelevant to your breeding program. Families are more important. If you can't find a suitable mate (or trait) within your family . . find a family of dogs who are as close to yours, performance wise, as you can. Or one that will give you what you are trying to gain while giving up as little as possible from what you already have.
But that's just how I see it.
good post...some folks talk about I have a line of gold nugget bred dogs and gold nugget died 30 years ago...in reality it is true to a certain extent if that person maintained those same traits for that long...some folks will and some won't...I have 2 friends that all three of us have had the same family of dogs and all three went in different directions with them...just different wants...
