I'm totally against cruelty to animals, but as others have said, cutting such scenes won't repair any damage.
I also think that with a film like Cannibal Holocaust there is only 2 logical options - an outright ban or passed intact. The problem with a film like Holocaust is that the animal violence is a part of the fabric of the film. It is what it is. Cutting it is pointless and serves no real purpose. See it uncut or not at all IMO. The animal violence is ugly and repellant, but it is part of what makes Holocaust such a ferociously contentious work. remove that and you're emasculating Deodato's point, really. For better or for worse, what's done is done. Deodato does seem genuinely repentant these days though - unlike *cough*Martino*cough* who still insists he did nothing wrong.
It's a tricky one. And whilst I dislike animal cruelty I think the BBFC do the history of cinema a huge disservice by removing all evidence of it. The only reason we know that animals are treated humanely today is because we know how badly they were treated in the past.
As for equating it with child abuse, I disagree. Whilst it's not illegal to swiftly kill an animal, it's most certainly against the law to kill a child under any circumstances. Even the law recognises that violence to a child is far more serious than violence toward an animal, whatever your own personal view might be.
Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar