Lute, I wouldn't say that all AKC dogs were created for actual purposes, as is demonstrated by virtually the entire Toy group.

Albino, you're right; absolutely not all (or even most) dogs today are bred for any purpose other than companionship. However, we are not talking about the propagation of a breed already in existence. We're talking solely about the creation and establishment of a new breed in itself. And I wouldn't say the issue of overpopulation is irrelevant at all. Rather, because we have horrendous overpopulation, it is imperative that a "new" breed be legitimate. Example: Labradoodles. Labradoodles, as was demonstrated by the failure of the Seeing Eye program, have no other actual purpose for creation than companionship. In an underpopulated world, that's fine and dandy. But because our society is so darn overpopulated (really, bursting at the seams!), it's just downright unethical to create a new breed, the Labradoodle, when there are so many companion-quality dogs already in existence and languishing in shelters and when there is a breed that already fulfills that niche of a curly-coated retriever. Again, I'm not talking about the continuation of breeds already in existence because that will just take you on a never-ending tangent. I'm only talking about the validity of creating a new breed in our day and age, which is the sole issue of all these "designer dog" and "new breed" discussions.

Like I said, I have nothing against a new breed if it actually does fulfill an unfilled niche, like the Silken. In fact, that's the general sentiment of most people. However, when the dog is merely adding to an already fulfilled niche, well, there's going to be pretty severe backlash.