Tim Herald's lion hunt got me thinking about facial scarring on lions.

Quote from Tim's report:

"His face was not scarred, and Stu just did not want to call him 6 years old. He feels that he is 100% 5 or older, but no scarring has him worried. He said he is the best dark maned lion he has ever seen here, and one of the best 2 manes here that he has ever seen."

So my question is... If a five year old lion does not show facial scarring, which seems to be one factor in determining age, would you really expect the same lion to receive significant facial scarring in the next year?

I know the question has many variables, but just wonder if the same lion at six years of age would get another pass because of lack of facial scarring.

Something to think about...

Very true. Especially in areas with low populations. Save Cons for example.

I asked same question - is that year from 5-6 a year of serious fighting for all lions? I think this is one of those inexact things...

That lion in Tim's pic's is likely 4+ and possibly 5. 5-6 IS an age for heavy fighting as they are becoming serious contenders to take over a pride and are seriously focussing on breeding.

Scarring however is only one factor and certainly should not be "the" criteria to take a cat. But it's presence is comforting.

I think Stu made the right call.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
That lion in Tim's pic's is likely 4+ and possibly 5. 5-6 IS an age for heavy fighting as they are becoming serious contenders to take over a pride and are seriously focussing on breeding.

Scarring however is only one factor and certainly should not be "the" criteria to take a cat. But it's presence is comforting.

I think Stu made the right call.

Exactly! Its only one criteria, and frankly not always as easy to see as one might think.

Under the circumstances, the PH probably errored on the side of caution. He's definitely NOT a young/immature male.