Here are some suggestions (sorry if I compromised the formatting)...
I made the change in section III, subsection 3(a) because I think it presents quite a few challenges. What counts as mutilation? Who decides whether mutilation is “needless?” I think here of farmers who remove the tails of young lambs. I’m not exactly sure why it’s done, but it’s just the way things have worked for a long time. Maybe we’d consider making specific exceptions for young animals.
I also altered part of section III, subsection 3(c). Honestly I don’t really even understand what you mean by the section I crossed out. Is putting a sweater on a dog considered “conveying an animal in a human manner?” I don’t want people getting in trouble for things that aren’t really that terrible.
The next change may also be contentious: I changed the fine you specified in section III, subsection 4. I do not believe in fining people based on percentages of their wealth or income. I believe in dollar amounts. It doesn’t have to be $10,000 (I just took it from Canada’s Criminal Code), but it ought to be something specific. People with no wealth or income shouldn’t be exempt, and people with lots of income shouldn’t be forced to hand over millions of dollars for animal cruelty. One dollar still has a value that we shouldn’t ignore when setting fines. I think Senator Franzl (or maybe it was Marokai) proposed a similar scheme for traffic fines a few months ago. I fought it vigorously—I don’t want police to start cracking down on rich people because they know they can get more income for their region out of it.
Another controversial change: section IV, subsection 2. Using growth hormones in farm animals is now enshrined in factory farming and meat production. It is permitted in Canada and the United States, and probably most other places too. I agree that antibiotics should only be used upon receiving prescriptions from veterinarians (human deaths can be linked to the use of antibiotics in animals—hard numbers, too), but I think the picture is murkier with hormones. Prohibiting the use of growth hormones would be an economic setback to many companies.
Also, I’m wondering whether section VI is a little too strict, but I’m not really sure what to do about it. Anyhow, those were most of the changes I’d make (aside from defining “animal” and “cruel” and making exceptions for the extermination of household pests).
