He' peck as much wood as a woodpecker could if a woodpecker could peck wood.

Does it come with a wheelbarrow to move it around? That range and speed spell weight!
I see it primarily as a studio lens.

I have a Metz that still works fine - I’m not sure when I bought it, but it’s at least thirty years old.

It depends greatly on where and how you will be traveling. I've had a great deal of use for long lenses on both of my trips there, but the same can be said for wide lenses. Small vehicles like Land Rovers get very close to some animals, but not all. Landscapes need wide or normal (50mm equiv) lenses. Watching a predator stalk prey requires that you stay well away from the active scene, or you will disrupt the predator's ability to survive - the prey will be on high alert, and the vehicle will cause him to flee; Most species in large herds and alone away from predators are very tolerant of close observers. Birds need long lenses.
If you're in the back of a truck or a large vehicle with lots of others, a wide zoom is the only realistic choice. In a smaller vehicle with few occupants, I'd opt for two cameras, one with Avery long prime, and the other with a shorter zoom - and I'd still carry a 1.4 converter, and highly stabilized equipment.

1917??? Somebody was way ahead of his time!🤪

How do you ever know which book is “best”, until you have read every one of them?

I've been there twice; Falklands were the best for bird varieties and nesting Albatross and Rockhopper Penguins. Over open water there are lots of flying birds - mostly Albatross and a variety of Petrels. I suggest rooms on the top deck for quick access up top to all sides of the boat. On our boat the foredeck was great too, but I needed special permission to go up there.
As stated above, smaller boats get you ashore more frequently, and that's where the action is for penguins and seals of many varieties. We often watched bigger boats including Lindblad/NG, anchor a couple of miles further out than our 100 passenger, 230 ft. boat - and they sent NO-ONE ashore on Zodiacs. Whales were seen both from the big boat and from Zodiacs - we were fortunate to see over a hundred one day, some so close to the Zodiac that one could have reached out and touched them.
From the big boats, they probably used long lenses, but while I carried a 150-600 on the first trip, in no case did I have much use for any lens longer than 200mm. In fact, some of the time, most often in the Falklands, if one stayed very still, the birds came right up to examine us - less than a foot away. The Penguins occasionally were the same - I'd sit down or lie down on the ground, wait just a few minutes, and they would be right there in my face!
I have a severely culled slide show with around 200 pictures that I get frequent viewing requests from friends and friends of friends. The photo opportunities when you get to shore in the right places are innumerable.

Correct, but be sure it's a "bottoming" tap. A conventional tap will not work.
If the threads are so badly stripped that they cannot be restored, a device called a "helicoil" may do the job.

Changing to the R5 from 5Div has sharply reduced my use of a tripod; the IBIS plus the IS within lenses is a game changer for carrying a camera while taking longish hikes. Eye tracking, fast autofocus, lower noise in low light situations, other factors.
Long lenses are heavy, and if you can get rid of a huge and clumsy-to-carry tripod, used in my case for wildlife photography, it's hard to say no to the change.
The change is expensive, no doubt, but if you can swing it, worthwhile.

Thank for the reference. The article makes the difference very clear.

Nope. It's the 28th now.

The longer lens will be very useful for Sheep and Goats if you're able to find them. Bison, not so much. I've never seen a Wolf in Alaska, and the 300 will work for Moose most of the time. Caribou are the reverse problem; I have driven right up to them in the middle of the road, and they wouldn't get out of the way! I finally lost patience, got out of the car, and shouted at them to move. They just looked at me. I finally threw a small rock at one of them, and then they slowly sauntered off the road.
Weight of the 150-600 is a big problem for quick handling, and if you have a high megapixel camera and are comfortable with post-processing, the 300 may be enough.

I'm no expert on this subject, but I've seen two different studies that claimed to show that the intensity of the light is what counts most, not the wave length (red, etc). It was a long while ago, and I can neither remember where they were, nor can I find them with a Google search.

I'm unwilling to say that the absence of a clearly defined subject in and of itself ruins a photo. However the OP's posted picture simply looks "busy", and the impressionistic style is insufficient to save the image as a keeper.
Most pictures need a primary focal point or subject, but such a primary subject no more makes a picture a saver than does the absence of same disqualify it.
To each is own; good, bad, and indifferent are matters of individual taste - one man's treasure is another man's trash, and vice versa.

The LG 27U850-W is a GREAT monitor. Its color gamut is wide, it's easily calibrated, and stable. It has multiple USB-C ports to power your (and my) M1 MacBook and several peripherals like printers, scanners, external drives...
I have nothing but good things to say about mine. I've also used mine as the central monitor in a three monitor array for X-Plane 12, and a friend uses his for a similar array for gaming.