You must have missed the part where she wasn't actually killing most of them. Your ability to read between the lines is even worse than your ability to read what they wrote. She's pretending to kill them all in order to exploit people easily confused by pictures and vague terms like "shoot" and "bag."
I guess that answers my "can you read?" question. You think you are reading between the lines when you are actually just jumping to the controversial assumptions they wanted you to jump to. You fed the troll. Bought it hook line and sinker then defended your initial interpretation in the face of reason and evidence to the contrary.
She did kill SOME of the animals, but only the ones that needed to be. For example, there is only one male lion per pride which consist of many females means that there are an excess of male lions outside the prides. Only one is needed to impregnate the females of the pride. The rogue male lions are a danger to themselves and the health and safety of the others. They will occasionally try to take over the pride and, successful or not, there are injuries. Even when they do succeed, they don't usually do it without injury to themselves and their next order of business is to kill all the offspring of the previous male. Reducing the numbers of rogue lions within a preserve furthers the goals of the preserve and protects the welfare of all the remaining lions.
I'm sure something similar applies to bull elephants in the preserve. If she and others weren't paying to do the dirty work, someone else would have to be paid TO do the dirty work or else all the animals would suffer and the preserve would fail to provide the conservation it exists to provide.
The white rhino was tranquilized for needed medical treatment, but they pretended that she killed it when they referenced it a second time and never used the word "tranquilizer." Did you catch that? How many other animals were simply tranquilized? I'm reading what's actually between the lines here: A lot.