Shanghai Haichang Ocean Park Open

This is a major zoo development that seems to have passed ZooChat by (I am not entirely blameless for this).

The park opened last month. Of most significance is the fact that the orcas are the first to go on display in China. There are however a lot of drawcard species: whale sharks, belugas, walruses, dolphins, polar bears etc. The park was advertising itself as the biggest of its kind in the world prelaunch, but looking at the photos in the below link it's pretty clear that's not the case. I was quite excited to visit here, but now that a lot more pictures have emerged it's becoming quite clear that it is almost unbearably tacky. It will also likely be the most expensive 'zoo' I have ever visited in my life. Nonetheless it seems I should go. You also never know exactly what will be in the smaller tanks, and what pinnipeds and dolphins they will have gotten hold of.

Shanghai Haichang Ocean Park

 

Good spot!
At least some of the birds are certainly Magellanics.

 

They have both Humboldts and Magellanics in one mixed exhibit, and Emperors, Adelies and Gentoos in another.

 

No change of interbreeding?

 

I would have thought there would be, but I don't know really.

 

Here are some thoughts on this new park, now that I've got to uploading photos.

Shanghai Haichang Ocean Park - ZooChat

Although it is in Shanghai, it takes an hour or so to get there from the city centre by metro. It's far. However, it is relatively close to the Wild Animal Park (and Disneyland), so could be twinned with the former to save time. I think it's an open question whether you would want to double them up, but with a taxi it would definitely be possible.

The initial impression and overall aesthetic is very Haichang. Think Hansel and Gretel if Hansel and Gretel were tacky and kitsch. Surprisingly the park is a bit cheaper than the Haichang Park in Hangzhou (but still very pricey overall).

A garish yellow building hides a large pinniped pool. This holds four species, and well over twenty individuals. It's an impressive size, but obviously still crowded. I'm quite concerned about the long-term prognosis for keeping several huge bull sea lions together. In the basement with underwater viewing are two rather desultory exhibits for African manatee and Asian short-clawed otter.

The next complex we 'enjoyed' was Arctic Hell, I mean Hall. The low-light of the zoo, it has abysmal all-indoor exhibits for polar bear, arctic fox and wolf. For a facility that opened in 2018 these are beyond condemnation. There is also a tank containing three beluga. I know Haichang can build a decent beluga complex because they did so in Hangzhou. Here this small tank that couldn't support breeding seems just to be a box-ticking exercise. The only redeeming feature in the Arctic Hall is a seal tank which wraps around and over the visitor area with a vertical tunnel going through it as well. There are also bearded seals in a satellite exhibit.

As mentioned above the park has an impressive array of penguins. The antarctic exhibit is similar to the seal tank described above. This was one of the better houses in the zoo, although keeping Magellanic and Humboldt's penguins together seems questionable.

There are two classic aquarium style buildings. The smaller contains a few coral tanks and a typically dramatically-lit jellyfish section. Unfortunately this is also where the park deals itself an ethical killing blow. On my visit they were selling little sealed plastic containers with water, a jellyfish and a colourful LED. It's not the first time I've seen this, but it still makes me sick. It's pure venality, and in an institution that should at least care about welfare and conservation it's inexcusable.

The larger aquarium is ostensibly the Whale Shark Hall, but currently lacks whale sharks. It does have other sharks though, as well as a large grouper tank and an unusually large arapaima tank. These are usually housed in quite shallow riverine set-ups. I suspect this has been repurposed. There are also a few smaller tanks like in the other building. There's quite a lot to like here.

In between the two is a dolphin lagoon and a dolphin stadium. The show itself was forgettable, but it does have a nifty feature: two circular falling water curtains that can create different patterns and shapes. The lagoon was quite pretty, but we didn't see any dolphins in it so it was hard to assess. There is indoor holding as well but it was closed.

The last and most significant offering from the park is orcas. There are four pools, including the show pool. One of the other three one has underwater viewing, and it was here that I saw my first killer whale. They really are magnificent. Strangely, seeing them at Shanghai made up my mind that it is in theory possible to house them humanely. It's not being done anywhere in the world currently in my estimation, but much as Nuremberg or Harderwijk seem to have got dolphins right, somewhere with enough money and motivation could do it. And looking at the way things are going, if it ever happens it will probably be in China.

The orca show was a little underwhelming; not all of the four orcas at the park performed, there weren't any synchronised tricks and there wasn't any water work. I would imagine all these will feature as the park matures.

Overall Shanghai Haichang Ocean Park is a strong addition to a city that already features a strong line-up for the zoonerd. Even if I was still local (I'm not), I would be unlikely to visit again for quite some time, just because of the issues I saw, but I suppose I would eventually and I hope other enthusiasts do in the nearer future.

 

Thanks for your review.

I'm not sure I see the welfare or conservation issues here. In my view, welfare requires an assumption of sentience. Jellyfish don't have brains, so sentience is a stretch (some of the wackier theories of consciousness notwithstanding). I'm not concerned for their welfare any more than I'm concerned about the welfare of an aubergine or a toilet brush. Conservation-wise, this hardly engenders respect for the natural world. But is it worse than, say, serving hamburgers in the restaurant?

 

Thanks for picking up on an interesting point

If you were on-hand to explain these issues to visitors I'd feel much better about the situation but you're not, and I see no evidence that anyone is making those distinctions at the zoo.

I think I have the following response:

If we accept the premise that there is no welfare issue around jellyfish or other animals that have no CNS, then I see no ethical reason why zoos shouldn't sell 'Torture your own jellyfish' kits. Surely we should take a stance that an animal's inability to suffer does not negate the responsibility of human carers to provide for its basic needs, in this case by not allowing it to starve to death? You might argue that such a responsibility would not rest on welfare grounds, but I'd say that firstly you seem to be suggesting the responsibility doesn't exist at all (fair?)and secondly that in a world in which humans seem to be fairly poor at ensuring reasonable levels of animal welfare the distinction you would be making is not a productive one.

Feeding out of that, let's put the 'jellyfish in a pot' into context in China. This is a country where I have also seen terrapins in sealed plastic key-rings sold in a zoo to be used as fashion accessories. A country where, as we recently discussed, there are no laws protecting or guaranteeing animal welfare. So the statement that 'animals are not toys' is by no means to be taken as read. Zoos have an opportunity and a responsibility to lead on this issue and the messaging here is just disastrous.

With regards to conservation and hamburgers you're on stronger ground and I was going to concede the point, but I think there is actually a difference. It's the difference between hamburgers and (live) bushmeat. People might not raise an eyebrow if a British zoo sold ostrich burgers (I think they would though*) but China is currently undergoing a virus epidemic most likely spread by a market where live civets were sold for food. Whilst making a distinction between 'wild animals' and 'food animals' may actually exacerbate welfare problems, it should have real positive impacts in human health and conservation. It's not a question of whether that particular species of jellyfish is a disease vector or an endangered species, it's about the narrative that the zoo can build around these issues. Not having live, wild animals on sale is far more powerful than not having farmed meat in the restaurant.

*I would be uneasy if I saw this hypothetical example. I would be absolutely opposed to zoos selling wild-shot Scottish grouse.

 

I think our arguments have the same foundations; we're just coming from different cultures. For you, it's wrong to reinforce Chinese ambivalence about animal welfare. For me, it's counterproductive to define welfare so expansively that the term becomes meaningless. We have no responsibility – from a welfare perspective – towards animals which cannot reasonably be assumed to suffer. I don't care about a jellyfish "starving" any more than I care about a poriferan or a plant or a protist "starving". Without sentience, they have no welfare.

This is crucial, because sentience isn't outlandish for all inverts. Based on their cognitive abilities, cephalopods are protected under welfare legislation in various countries, including the UK. There is (arguably) as much quantitative evidence for pain in decapod crustaceans as there is for pain in dogs and cats. Findings like this are vigorously denied by industry stakeholders (e.g. New England lobster fisheries), so we must stick to the science and avoid positions that are easy to straw-man ("Invertebrate welfare? Ha! Jellyfish don't even have brains..."). Without explaining that distinction, though, I appreciate the jellyfish lamps send out the wrong message.

This is essentially the previous point: it's not a conservation issue in itself, but it sends the wrong message. As you know Chinese visitors better than I do, I'll defer to your judgement.