As we climb through 20,200 signatures, I’ve been digging deeper into the 'why' behind the loss of the Wildwood 5. I’ve uncovered information that changes the timeline of this 'sudden' tragedy. This information includes the director of Wildwood with a 20 year background in Employment Law which deals with litigations, etc and even though it mentions in one or two press reports that he has a zoology degree, with his law degree and then chairman of the park, this zoology degree must be at least 20 years old, and we all know that things change from what you learn 20 years ago.
1. The Shifting Narrative
On March 25th, the story was '3 injured wolves.' By April, it became 'all 5 were unhealthy and it was illegal to keep them alive.' While autopsies take time, why did the story change so drastically only after public outcry?
2. The Admission of Prior Knowledge
I have received written confirmation from the park that they noticed 'unusual levels of aggression' months ago. This was not a freak accident. It was a known social crisis. If the park knew this was happening, why was there no physical intervention—like separation—before it reached a 'lethal' point?
3. Expertise at the Top
The Trust’s leadership includes high-level expertise in Industrial and Employment Law. This makes me ask: Was the decision to euthanize the entire pack a veterinary necessity, or a calculated legal move to manage 'risk' and liability? I'm no lawyer but no matter if your fighting for the animals welfare or managing risk and liability, consistency is key.
And to go from "if we euthanized 2 and left 3" quoted on MSN to "if we euthanized 3 and left 2" from the independent, to 3 out of 5 were seriously injured from ITVX, BBC, MIRROR (all between 25th to 27th to "all 5 wolves demonstrated wounds, injuries and pathologies from an email sent to Members and Supporters on the 27th to "none of the wolves were healthy" in a personal response to my email on April 4th, that shows this is so far from consistent that it doesn't take a lawyers degree to spot the flaws. They even told the telegraph on the 26th (day after euthanasia,) "we had to kill all five wolves despite the other two being unhurt" because it was "feared they would all end up turning against each other." So they put 2 healthy wolves down because they were afraid of what "might" happen? Legally you CANNOT euthanize CITES protected animals out of a fear or prediction.
They also claim that they couldn't enter the enclosure safely to intervene. Every UK zoo is governed by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. If a pack of wolves becomes so unstable that keepers cannot safely perform their duties (cleaning, feeding, or medical checks), the zoo has two legal choices:
Choice A: Use existing secondary facilities (squeeze cages, shift dens, or separate paddocks) to isolate the animals.
Choice B: Euthanize the animals because you lack the "Choice A" facilities.
By admitting they couldn't enter safely, they are admitting they were forced into Choice B. This proves it wasn't a "medical necessity" for the two unhurt wolves; it was a "staff safety necessity" caused by inadequate enclosure design. It also proves there is no upper walkway surrounding the enclosure which staff could use to dart sedate before the escalation.
If either of these is correct it poses more backlash on the park because either people were paying to see the animals and 5 sick wolves if none of the wolves were unhealthy, or if the mother started to show aggression to one of the males months ago, and this male was the one had the sepsis, which we all know is a systemic infection that takes days to show signs of, then people were paying to see the animals and a wolf with growing aggression and a wolf with an open wound and 3 healthy wolves, which is a breach of the Zoo Licensing Act and the Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice (SSSMZP).
Scenario A: "None of the wolves were healthy" (The Medical Defense)
If, as they claimed in April, none of the five wolves were healthy and all had "pathologies":
The Licensing Breach: Under Section 1.3 of the SSSMZP, zoos must maintain a "high standard of animal care" and "preventing suffering."
The Public Deception: If five wolves were chronically ill/unhealthy, the park was effectively charging the public to view a "sick" pack.
The Management Failure: How did an entire pack reach a state of "illegal suffering" simultaneously without the vet logs reflecting a massive, systemic failure in care over the preceding months?
Scenario B: "Aggression months ago" + "Sepsis" (The Management Failure)
If the mother was attacking a male for months (as admitted in my email) and that male had sepsis:
The Licensing Breach: This is a direct violation of Standard 4: Care and Wellbeing. Sepsis from an open wound means the animal was not being "protected from pain, injury, and disease."
The Failure to Intervene: If they saw "unusual levels of aggression" but kept the animals together until a "violent breakdown" occurred, they failed to provide a "suitable environment" (Standard 1). A suitable environment must include the ability to separate animals that are a danger to each other.
What’s Next?
I am sending this evidence to the Council's Senior Health & Safety Officer ahead of their site visit next week. If the official findings show that management failures led to this medical crisis, I am prepared to take this file to the RSPCA to investigate potential breaches of the Animal Welfare Act.
Our New Goal: 25,000 by June.
We need the APHA inspectors to walk into that park knowing that 25,000 people aren't just watching—they’re informed. So please share this petition link on whatever wildlife page or wolf page on social media or other sources you follow. The fact that the signature number is still climbing is absolutely incredible. The more shares the faster we reach our 25,000 milestone. Again, and I can't stress this enough, this is about truth and transparency. It doesn't take a seasoned lawyer to know that by sticking to one result across the entire board across all media and emails would pose less red flags and this may not have gotten to this stage. It has to be one, or the other. It CANNOT be both. So please help me get the transparency that all paying supporters, animal lovers and Odin, Nuna, Minimus, Maximus and Tiberius deserves.