> Photography / cinematography have historically proven to move people enough to take action [...] Zoos only provides a little more than a photography.
I disagree with the latter sentence. I think that seeing something in person -- whether an animal or a landscape -- is very different to seeing a photograph or video. That's why it's so different to travel somewhere to see something in person.
Seeing a Lion in caged zoo is nothing like seeing a Lion or a cheetah in the wild. They just look so bored and dead. Being raised in Kenya, when I visited the Seattle Zoo I was saddened. You can see from their eyes that they have lost hope. They just look very depressed. Seeing a Lion in the wild, you can see the pride in their eyes.
Maybe seeing something in person has a greater impact than photography and cinematography, yet there are many ways to see wildlife other than a traditional aquarium or zoo. Whale watching tours are certainly available in coastal communities where whales frequent. Heck, you may even be able to catch a glimpse by simply taking a walk in the right parts of Vancouver at the right time.
(Slightly off topic, but you'd be amazed at the wildlife that you come across in the highly urbanized parts of Vancouver because it is surrounded to the north and east by wilderness and has many rail corridors and parks that animals follow into the city.)
I disagree with the latter sentence. I think that seeing something in person -- whether an animal or a landscape -- is very different to seeing a photograph or video. That's why it's so different to travel somewhere to see something in person.