There are times when I look at the foolishness of half-baked environmentalism and laugh, and times that I look at it and want to cry. And then there are times that I think someone is just out there testing their trolling skills.

I’m really hoping that this letter to the editor published by the Washington Post is the latter, but I’m  not getting my hopes up.

Kudos to Helen Smith [“A deer price to pay,” letters, Dec. 7] for being a decent human being who cares about the welfare of other creatures. Unfortunately, Hilary Donovan’s letter in reply [“The threat posed by gentle deer,” Dec. 10] was a good example of how conceited humanity has become. It was very sad that a deer was hit by a car and, in the process, injured a jogger — sad for all concerned, including the deer. That, however, is hardly a reason to go around killing deer.

What about all the joggers who get hit by cars directly, or get mugged or even killed by other people? The crime of eating pansies does not deserve a death sentence, either.

Yes, we could do with fewer deer, for their sake as well as ours. But if deer can be lured to their deaths with food, why can’t that food just as easily be laced with contraceptives?

Human beings can do many things other life forms cannot. Unfortunately, killing is what we do best.

Iris Antin, Silver Spring

I really hope that you’re trolling, Iris, but I’m not convinced that you are.