When it seems absolutely impossible to avoid harming a being because the activity one has to perform is done with the purpose of saving a human life, it only seems natural for most people to perform that specific act. Even those who are indifferent to whether or not animals die need to think about the bigger picture and try to preserve biodiversity in general in order to prevent the contemporary ecosystem from being seriously affected. According to the evolutionary theory, one can come to the conclusion that animals too are capable of moral thinking, even if it is done at a less advanced level in comparison to how humans do it. When considering elephants, it is particularly difficult for a normal human being to determine if they are moral agents or not, given that most people tend to judge matters from a biased perspective -- one that associates virtually everything with the human society and...

Even with that, people need to do everything in their power to guarantee the well-being of elephants, as, from a purely ethical point-of-view, "saving the elephants does not, it is assumed, involve the sacrifice of any other species" (Chadwick 545).
Elephants are but a small part of the animal reign that can be deemed as being morally considerable. There are a variety of species that comply with more of the requirements needed for them to be considered moral agents. However, present day society is focused on profit-making and tends to ignore the well-being of animals.

Chadwick, Ruth ed., Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, vol. 4 (San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1998)

Gruen, Lori, "The Moral Status of Animals," the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).