Much better shot that the last "ears" shot. This has a lot to do with the angle your shooting at, and the expression on his/her face, - much more engaged with the camera. The open space to the right works very well giving room to run into.
There is, unfortunately, - even thought its real and as shot, a branch which gives the impression the Deer is impaled on coming out from the right, - and if you have the skills or inclination, its worth removing it, - Ive done it in the mod.
I understand you comment about producing a shot that as it was, - real, not touched, and Ive had this discussion with many people over the years. It fair enough when we get to taking stuff out (like that branch) or putting thinks in that werent there, however a blanket statement about never changing any shot, and leaving it as a record is on very shaky ground. It is, - in my experience, based on the days of film where everyone was under the impression that what you shot was what you got from the developers lab. This is erroneous to start with, as every development process made changes, compensated for light, corrected colour, adjusted for overexposed shots etc. So you simply werent ware of what went on in the middle.
If you take the work of renowned photographers such as James Natchwey, - the simple fact is that behind every shot they take, theres an army of digital specialists who will adjust the shots to look as he wants them as a finished product. He certainly gets is absolutely as right as possible in the original shot, - but its extremely rare that a straight from camera shot makes it to print. Same goes for the National Geographic photographers. We have always tried to improve our shots in film or in digital. And this is because the light is very rarely perfect.
The other issue with taking as gospel what the camera procides is the fact that the camera and the eye NEVER see the same thing. Your eyes are was more capable that you camera, and make a myriad of adjustments to what you look at, compensating automatically for bright light, shadows, sunsets. The camera, - NO camera can do that, and what we surely want from a shot, or a print, is what WE saw, and not the camera. I would hazard a guess that when you took this shot, you didnt see that branck sticking out of the Deer`s neck. But the camera did. And if JaMes Natchwey too the same shot, - he would remove the branch.
Ever taken a shot of a Sunset, - a really beautiful scene, that put the shot on you computer and was disappointed. This is the most obvious example I can think if where the camera and the eye dont see the same thing. Your brain `knows`what a sunset is supposed to look like, and in `processing`the information from the eye, produces an image that looks as a sunset is supposed to look like, and includes mood, ambiance, and some deep psychological connection in your system that make it special. So what you need to do with the image is get it closer to that image in your mind.
Hope this is in some way helpful, - improving you shots is not cheating in any way, - its been done since Daguerro made the first image.