I think it's strange that we've actually gotten to the point where we complain because animals are endangered and try so hard to fight for them (which is the right thing to do) but then we start killing them once they reach certain numbers.
I do see the point regarding keeping biodiversity. If they don't, the elephants would surely meet carrying capacity and start tearing down the fencing (possibly hurting people) as well as dying from lack of food.
I like the idea of shipping them elsewhere, since as far as I know they're still endangered, and we should be promoting population growth. Maybe that one area just can't handle any more than what they have.
Either way, i don't think they should be killed and that the govenment there is leaning towards that simply because of finances (costs a lot more to ship an elephant or have it go through surgery than to kill it).
It makes me think of hunting season however. That's why they have hunting seasons, to keep animal populations in check (neither too many or too few). Also, I knew a girl who's dad was hired specially from the local govenment to kill beavers in the area, but only certain ones in certain areas, same idea.
All of this (carrying capacity and hunting season and all) makes me wonder what would happen if the tables were turned and animals decided that the human population were using too many resources and were ruining areas.