Elephants have two problems in Africa compression and reduction of range is probably the most important overall and poaching represents another major problem. The relative importance of the two varies between countries. Over half of all savanna elephants live in Zimbabwe and Botswana. Unfortunately, elephant populations can increase their numbers by 5%/annum. There is overwhelming evidence that, in some areas of Zimbabwe, for example, elephants are present in surplus numbers and are destroying their habitats. Eventually, of course, populations will self regulate their numbers by extra mortality, increased inter-calving intervals or by migration to, probably, areas that bring them into conflict with humans. Unfortunately, the self-regulation achieved by the arrival of maximum carrying capacity occurs well past the stage of sustainable long-term carrying capacity. Furthermore, maximum carrying capacity, itself, will constantly reduce with increasing habitat damage. If one doesn't cull in such areas or make extra habitat available, one will lose one's elephants anyway and they won't come back any time soon because the habitat will be desertified.
When professional hunters call for a return to culling, you should, at least, consider that they are probably doing so for reasons of compassion and care for the environment. If one accepts the logic of culling, the case for a legalised ivory trade becomes more compelling. However, in the past, the proceeds gained tended to go to governments (or into the pockets of corrupt politicians and officials) with little going back to the front line. Were such a scenario to be repeated following a possible resumption in trade, there would be little benefit for elephant conservation. However, it is not impossible to imagine a corruption-free trading system where most of the the proceeds of ivory sales went to the front line and with healthy chunks of such passing from surplus countries to other states experiencing severe poaching and needing more funding to combat it. This, of course, is a big ask and could never happen. Thus, the pro and anti-trade arguments are finely balanced. However, I would ask you to consider what would happen if the antis succeeded totally in destroying demand (again, something that might never happen). Before too long, elephant populations would recover in all range readily available to them to levels representing maximum sustainable carrying capacities and, thereafter, would continue to expand to habitat damaging levels. If demand for ivory has been destroyed in the meantime, Africa will have lost a very valuable source of conservation income, but, perhaps, up to 35000-40000 animal will need to be culled annually just to protect remaining habitat.
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions. I only ask that you try to understand why differing ones are not necessarily an indication of unbridled evil.