No on Question 3

FOR THE second time in eight years, dog lovers have placed an initiative petition on the ballot to ban dog racing in Massachusetts. This year's Question 3 is stronger than the 2000 version because it includes a phaseout period for closing down the tracks in Revere and Raynham. Proponents say they would work with the Legislature to set up retraining for the track employees. This year's question is also backed up by in-state data on injuries to the greyhounds. Still, the Globe does not believe the evidence presented by Question 3 supporters rises to the level of abusive mistreatment that would justify shutting down a legal industry. The Globe recommends a no vote on Question 3.

Proponents say that dog racing is by its very nature inhumane. George Carney, owner of the Raynham track, says the dog owners, who are independent of the track, have every incentive to treat the greyhounds well to maximize their earning potential. The 840 injuries to dogs since 2002 are not that numerous, compared with what track owners say are the 470,000 times dogs have run races in that period. And those injuries are treated by the veterinarians who are always present during races. A process exists for the adoption of dogs that are no longer fit to race in Massachusetts or other states.

Proponents of Question 3 can take pride in the fact that, through their efforts in years past, the Massachusetts dog racing industry is one of the most closely regulated in the country. Thanks in part to that oversight, dog racing deserves a reprieve in Massachusetts, even as many of its patrons switch their allegiance to new gambling venues in Connecticut and Rhode Island.