That's very helpful, thank you.
I'm not a wildlife photographer but if I was I'd probably shoot the way I normally do, i.e. wait (or arrange for) the subject to be good (predictable!) light rather than just tracking it and shooting wherever it happened to be. And I'd probably make almost no images as a result
Wildlife photographers use all sorts of approaches, including trying to make things as predictable as possible, e.g adding carefully positioned perches, building ponds to attract wildlife with carefully designed backgrounds, artificial lighting, baiting with food or calls etc etc. Actually, if you read about wildlife techniques, all sorts of approaches are, and have been, used. Some of which are ethically questionable.
But "Wildlife" and "Predictable" aren't words that generally go that well together. Even though you can add a certain amount of control, and some elements of wildlife behaviour can be predictable e.g. dragonflies returning to the same perch, or birds taking off into the wind, it's being "prepared" for the unexpected that makes auto ISO so useful. And of course if its totally predictable, using auto ISO wouldn't matter, because it isn't going to change
On the subject of predictability, I once spent 7 days live trapping small mammals where the traps, as part of the trapping routine, needed checked at sunrise. Every morning for the 7 days, I saw a brown hare make the same journey along a track and through some fields, completely ignoring my presence
On the 8th day after I had taken in the traps, I got up a bit earlier, and set up my camera in the spot I had determined would get me a good photograph. The lighting was good, and I had never photographed a hare before, so I waited, and waited and waited... and then gave up. I still don't have a photograph of a hare :-(
Again, not speaking for all, but I was birdwatcher first (from five, my parents would hand me over to the local bird club for birdwatching trips as neither of them were interested in wildlife) so as well as trying to make "good photographs" I'm also interested in record shots of birds I've seen for the first time.
And for many people. it's their interest in wildlife, the challenge of grabbing the unpredictable, and the technical difficulties involved that makes wildlife photography interesting.
Ideally, I choose hazy sunshine days in terms of lighting and will try and anticipate where an animal might appear and set my tripod up where lighting and background will suit the subject.. But while waiting for the principal subject e.g a marsh harrier, a bittern or whatever, to appear (if it does), lot's of other things are usually going on around me.
A grass snake swims along the edge of the lake in the shade of branches overhanging the water, backlit dragonflies are laying eggs, a peregrine falcons zooms overhead, a Cetti's warbler starts singing in a bush in the scrubby and shaded woodland behind me.
The hazy sunshine occasionally gives way to dull sunshine or bright sunshine as the clouds pass over. But generally, everything is changing very rapidly, the required shutter speed and the required aperture will vary as the lighting and subject changes. Auto ISO just reduces the number of things I need to think about.
It also makes it easier to swing back to the main subject of the day when pointing in the wrong direction at that Cetti's warbler and my wife quietly shouts "bittern.. reed beds left...just above the reeds". This will usually allow me to capture yet another well exposed, but slightly mis-focussed picture of a bittern !!
But as I said, this isn't the only kind of wildlife photography, just the kind that really benefits from auto ISO.