You mix with a different crowd of wild life shooters than I do. I must also be an exception as I have owned the R5, R6 and R7 for wild life photography, and the R6 is my last choice for bird photography, though sometimes first for other things. But, maybe I am not in a minority as there are 179 pages of R5 images on FM, for mainly wild life, and only 21 for the R6. Also you must consider all my images as not acceptable as I nearly always crop. By the same reasoning, any image taken on a 7DII or other crop camera must be unacceptable as it is a crop of a full frame sensor with the same lens attached and pixel pitch.
Not all wildlife photography is birds, our experiences will, of course, be very different, that we are on a forum of any kind is the exception as it means we are incredibly geeky vs the billions of photos that go up to social media.
I would need to see your images to deem them acceptable or not, assuredly a crop vs no crop debate could go on for pages and pages. In general, I want all my pixels on the subject and if the subject is smaller in the frame than I would like then I can get closer or compose the picture to embrace the background.
I am sure you are not oblivious to the fact that before the D850 and R5's of the world, wildlife, and sports photographers were using 16-20 MP bodies for over a decade and those images are still in use today. R3, R6, and Z6 owners are all creating amazing images with their lowly 20ish MP bodies.
The R7 almost has to be used in mechanical, you can't fast pan in electronic with it like you can the R5 and R6. The R5 and R6 are really fantastic bodies and you can just pick the one for your budget.
I don't know how many photographers you personally engage with by actually seeing them in the wild, or giving classes, tours, etc. But I have over the last year pushed past a few hundred now and Canon folks if they aren't still on a DSLR are moving most often to the R6 because of its fantastic value.