Revealed: What the BBC and RSPCA Got Wrong

On 28 July 2025, the BBC published an article titled “Imported dogs 'posing risk to UK', RSPCA warns”. As the founder of a rescue dog advocacy organisation, I read it with deep concern—not because the issues raised are entirely unfounded, but because the piece presents a one-sided, alarmist perspective that endangers the very lives of the dogs it claims to be concerned about.

The article reinforces long-standing misconceptions about foreign rescue dogs and fosters a climate of fear and distrust around adoption. These misconceptions are already rife in the UK, which is one of the least rescue-friendly countries in Europe. At a time when hundreds of thousands of dogs across Europe are suffering in dire conditions—many in kill shelters—this kind of narrative is not just unhelpful. It's dangerous.

1. Anecdotal Horror Stories Don’t Tell the Full Story

The BBC highlights “numerous owners” who’ve faced “serious difficulties” with rescue dogs from abroad. Yet, it fails to balance those stories with positive ones, or to compare them with challenges faced by owners of dogs from UK breeders. Where is the statistical context? Where are the hundreds of voices who would tell you that adopting a rescue dog—often sight unseen—was the best decision of their life?

Negative stories draw clicks, but they shouldn't dominate the narrative when the stakes are this high. Dogs' lives depend on people being willing to adopt, not being scared away by cherry-picked horror stories.

2. “Deliveroo for Dogs”? Actually, That Sounds Like a Lifeline

RSPCA spokesperson David Bowles likened international rescue to “Deliveroo for dogs”—a dismissive analogy implying a lack of seriousness. But what is wrong with a system that lets potential adopters search for a dog that matches their lifestyle, talk to people who know the dog, and then offer that dog a safe home? That’s not casual. That’s compassionate.

Furthermore, shelters using social media to showcase dogs isn’t a flaw—it’s a necessity. With limited funding and few formal marketing channels, platforms like Instagram are lifelines for foreign shelters fighting to get dogs noticed.

3. The “Secret Recordings” Reveal... What, Exactly?

The BBC describes “secret recordings” of shelter workers agreeing to dog adoptions quickly, as if it's a scandal. But the reality behind the scenes is one of tireless, unpaid effort. Most rescuers are volunteers, working 16-hour days, spending personal money, and still turning away dogs for lack of space. They aren't disinterested or negligent—they’re desperate to save lives, with limited resources.

Meanwhile, breeders in the UK can sell dogs without a single background check. Yet it’s rescue shelters that get held to impossible standards.

4. Rescue Dogs Have “Unknown Temperaments”? Wrong.

The notion that rescue dogs are mysterious behavioural risks is perhaps the most persistent myth. It’s also one of the most damaging.

Shelter staff interact with dogs daily, often for months or even years. They assess behaviour in a range of situations, and many offer additional “cat tests” or “child tests” before adoption. In fact, unlike eight-week-old puppies sold by breeders—whose adult temperaments are impossible to predict—rescue dogs have often already developed their personalities.

Let’s not forget: research shows that breed is not predictive of behaviour. So who is really taking the risk?

5. Yes, There Are Disease Risks—And Already Strict Measures

The article raises concerns about imported diseases. It's a valid issue, but one that is already addressed by UK regulations. All dogs entering the UK must pass disease screenings before travel. While rare cases of falsified records exist, they’re the exception, not the rule.

Instead of punishing all shelters abroad, why not spotlight those following best practices? Promote trustworthy organisations rather than fuelling blanket suspicion.

6. The Quarantined Dog Story: Misleading and Misplaced Blame

One anecdote tells of a Ukrainian rescue dog that bit her adopter after being quarantined. The framing suggests this proves rescue dogs are dangerous. But what it really illustrates is the trauma inflicted by the UK quarantine system.

This dog, pregnant and fleeing war, was taken from the person who saved her, held for three weeks, and returned visibly traumatised. Wouldn't any living creature react after such treatment? If the BBC wants to uncover wrongdoing, they should investigate quarantine conditions—not vilify the dog.

7. “Owners Who Can’t Cope” – An Owner Problem, Not a Dog Problem

The article claims rescue dogs are often adopted by people “who can’t cope.” But is that an indictment of the dogs, or a lack of education around dog ownership?

Irresponsible ownership is an issue across the board. Buying a pedigree dog requires no checks whatsoever. At least rescue organisations provide support, education, and—crucially—Rescue Back Up, where the dog is returned to the organisation if things go wrong. That’s infinitely more responsible than the current breeding market.

8. Adopting from a Video Isn’t Reckless—It’s Empathetic

The article ridicules the idea that adopters pick a dog based on a video and receive it “at three o'clock in the morning.” But… so what?

That video may have saved the dog’s life. It may have convinced someone to give them a chance. Many adopters say those moments were the most meaningful of their lives. I've done it—twice.

9. The “Russian Roulette” Analogy is Unfounded

It’s claimed that adopting a foreign rescue dog is like playing Russian roulette. That’s absurd. Dogs don’t arrive “broken.” They arrive tired, sometimes confused, and almost always grateful. Within days, they settle. The vast majority go on to thrive.

10. Rescue Dogs Are Not “Sold”

The BBC writes that rescue dogs are “sold via social media.” That’s flatly untrue. Shelters don’t profit. Adoption fees cover vet bills, food, and transport—nothing more. These dogs are rescued, not commodified.

A Better Way Forward: Smarter Regulation, Not Stigmatization

While I agree that better oversight of foreign shelters could improve outcomes, it must be implemented carefully. Many ethical, responsible shelters don’t have charity status or administrative support. Over-regulation would shut them down.

Instead, organisations like the RSPCA could lead by example. Why not create a certification programme to highlight law-abiding shelters? That would help adopters make informed choices without damaging the system that keeps thousands of dogs alive.

What the BBC Should Have Done

There is room for discussion about improving rescue practices. But publishing a fearmongering piece without context, balance, or compassion is reckless. The BBC has a duty to be impartial. The RSPCA is meant to champion animal welfare. Both failed in this instance.

Before running such articles, I urge you to speak with actual shelters. See the conditions for yourself. Understand the desperate decisions rescuers face every day.

Start by talking to ethical groups like The Pack Project UK, Balkan Underdogs, or High Hopes Dog Rescue. Or visit my organisation, Find a Rescue, at findarescue.org, where we share resources and verified rescue options for UK adopters.

The Bottom Line

Yes, rescuing from abroad comes with challenges. But it also saves lives. The BBC had the opportunity to tell a story of hope, compassion, and resilience. Instead, it chose fear. That’s not just irresponsible—it’s lethal.

Because when adoption rates drop, dogs die.