Pete would it be plausible to simply ask said comp admin? Buddy I have made images of a wild fallow heard and a heard at a managed country house,locally. To me they were chalk and cheese to get close to.one lot I walk up to the other I had to learn a great deal to get close to. To me both are wildlife just one set massively humanized.
Mate I make alot of Roe images,so think at depth on all this,but I often come back to what I call the mallard analogy.see mallard at one location can be so sketchy it is unreal.................................. to get close is an art,yet at a pond where they are fed they see you and come to you..........
but who would ask the question you have about a mallard?
Peter I photograph roe A LOT because ( beyond the simple fact I adore them) they are never humanized, leastways not in my experience, so they teach me a skillset I want to learn IE what togs call field craft. That doesn't make them hold a greater kudos than a park deer image wise, tis just a different challenge tis all.
Funny mate on my first visit ever to Exmoor I spotted some red high on a hill, had the setting sun at my back and wind in my face walked right up to them no camo no field craft just walked up to 'em with my lady in tow.......noone would ponder Exmoor red as not being wild, but they were no different I' d summize than your deer at Richmond to approach
One still has to make the best of a chance given....that's wildlife toggin mate making the best of a given situation.
How ya got to that place isn't really relevent if the amiinal or bird is humanized isn't really relevent ......having field skills just allows a slightly greater chance of gettiing to that point of shutter press in a wider variety of situations
it don't make the image after shutter is pressed any better though