Do you disagree with most animal cruelty laws then? What about dog or cock fighting?

One of the strongest arguments for banning cock/dog fighting is that it inculcates moral depravity in its participants. To stand there and take pleasure in causing suffering in living things can only serve make you callous to human suffering as well. It seems justified to ban it, at least as an organized, large-scale enterprise.

By the same token, a gradual increase in the legal and customary respect shown to animals could inculcate a growing respect for our fellow humans.

I realize I've laid out a slippery slope. That's why I was hesitant. The strongest case is for banning organized, large-scale animal cruelty done for depraved enjoyment. But I don't think we should prosecute people because we don't like, for example, that they use electric shock collars to keep their dogs from running off.

I'd summarize my position as: 1) animal interests for their own sake are not a legitimate end of government coercion, and 2) the moral character of the people is a legitimate end, but we should be very hesitant to use coercion for social engineering.

You're not holding much water to be honest. Pick one: a) animals are incapable of suffering b) we shouldn't care if animals suffer c) we should care and pass laws

My argument is the option you're omitting:

d) animals suffer, we should care, but we should not pass laws when their sole purpose is to prevent that suffering.

There is more to a society that what it compels at gunpoint. We can abhor behavior without proscribing it by law.

What is law if not the ability to arrest controversy?

Are you arguing that the solution to all controversy is to pass a law? You are proposing to solve all problems at gunpoint.

What space for different conceptions of the good, for diversity of values and preferences, could exist in such a society?

You must have limiting principles for when we should resort to the remedy of the law. Perhaps yours are different than mine, but I doubt that you have none at all.

That would fall under the scope of "needless".

The context of this law is a lobster that's going to be eaten.

So what, as long as humans win it's OK? Boy that sounds like a shitty philosophy, but we might quickly get into an argument over the semantics of "win".