Did you connect with Margie's concerns about the treatment and welfare of animals? What animal-related issues did the book raise for you?

Did you connect with Margie's concerns about the treatment and welfare of animals? What animal-related issues did the book raise for you?

To an extent I connected with Margie's concerns about animal treatment and welfare. I buy organic food and meat and care a lot about animal treatment. For instance, I won't eat veal or pate because of the way the food is made. However, I don't think that activism like HEART's is the answer.

I so connected with Margie. Don't particularly like the use of violence but I loved her passion and loved her for it

I have a great deal of compassion for Margie. I could connect with her in that way. I do think that she let her "love" get in the way of her compassion for animals and therefore didn't know how to be effective in her actions.

I feel for animals that are mistreated and without love. I do not connect in the same way Margie did. I think it was wrong of the group to free the birds. Most of them will probably not make it in the open. I did feel very deeply for the lovebird that lost its mate. That almost made me cry.

Most definitely. I do believe Margie's youth and being so naive caused her to do things she would later regret, even though her heart was in the right place. But violence is not the answer to any of the modern world's problems, in my opinion. I believe as she became more mature and more self-confident while living on the reservation, she would think back on her earlier actions and do things differently. We do not help animals of any kind by bringing negative attention to our efforts to help them. Today there are many wonderful animal rescue organizations, people lobbying state and federal legislators, etc. that positive publicity to help animals who are in bad situations are making a difference, I believe.

I believe that animals should be treated humanely; however, Maggie and her group seemed to be among those who very definitely go overboard and, thereby, alienate many other people. Interfering with legitimate business, such as pet sales or, yes, restaurants, is both illegal and selfish. Granted, the restaurant Untamed was a bit overboard but people in other parts of the world do eat animals that we do not commonly have on our tables. For me, rabbit would be an animal that I have not eaten; however, my father hunted duck and pheasants and they were delicious. (If the pheasants were not hunted, they would have overrun the area in which I grew up and vegans would not have had any grain to eat!) Also, illegal acts are not justifiable - I think it goes to the two wrongs do not make a right philosophy. Recently, I received an email concerning the well-being of silkworms! I cannot say that that is an issue that I can get passionate about - how about the well-being of the homeless or the mentally ill?

I care deeply about animal rights, however, I think when the group set fire to the restaurant, it went beyond caring about animals. It was breaking the law. I found the group to be quite strange and didn't really seem organized and totally serious about whatever it was they were trying to do.

Even letting all the animals out of the pet store seemed a little over the top.

I did connect to some degree. The idea of raising awareness about animal treatment is good - it amazes me that many people don't know the food to table story very well. Setting the pet store birds free was not a good thing to do. Expecting them to survive on their own was inappropriate and animal activists would know that. I thought the activist group was a little odd though.

I definitely related to Margie's concerns for suffering animals and the deplorable conditions of food factory situations. It reminded me of the shock I felt after watching a documentary on American food called Food, Inc. I do not support violent acts but applaud efforts to expose deplorable conditions and working to effect change by educating the public.