The burden of proof would normally work the other way around. Not being privy to all the information, I imagine that the panel has some evidential basis (beyond a hunch) for thinking that this wolf is not the real deal (a sheep in wolf's clothing?)
Originally Posted by Q.G.
It would be very unlikely that they simply said to the photographer, "we think your shot is staged because it looks too perfect - prove that it isn't". More likely they have some strong specific evidence (eg receipts from Hire-A-Wolf) that has not been revealed in the story. The photographer then presumably failed to provide a convincing explanation.