---

Proponents of Question 3 on the Nov. 4 ballot call greyhound racing cruel and would phase it out, but opponents emphatically deny that and say it wouldn't make sense to mistreat dogs on which the racing industry depends.

The Committee to Protect Dogs, which has campaigned to phase out greyhound racing in the state by 2010, say the dogs face conditions that are inhumane and are again appealing to the electorate.

The same question on the 2000 ballot lost 51 percent to 49 percent.

"Those greyhounds are kept and confined in tiny cages for 20 hours a day, according to statements made by their own trainers," said Christine A. Dorchak, co-chairwoman of the committee. "Cages measure 32 inches wide and 34 inches high, and the dogs are not even able to stand up. That's no way to treat the dog."

She also cited the number of injuries that befall racing greyhounds in Massachusetts, based on public records kept since 2002. "Over 800 dogs were severely injured since 2002," Dorchak said.

Fractures accounted for 78 percent of total injuries; others included dislocation and laceration.

"In fact, according to the tracks' own record, dogs go down every three or four days in Massachusetts," she said.

Gary Temple, general manager of Raynham-Taunton Greyhound Park, one of two greyhound tracks in the state, said "that's completely false," of claims made by the committee.

After the 2000 election, Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Humane Society of the United States and GREY2K, a greyhound protection group, which support this year's ballot initiative, made recommendations to the state racing commission, including the size of crates.

"Well, the size of the crates was already larger than the dimension that they recommended," Temple said. "They wanted to have height 27 inches, width 32, and depth 40. Our cages are height 30.5, width 35.5, and depth 49."

That's the largest crates today, he said.

He also said dogs are let out of crates at least five or six times a day.

"It doesn't make any sense dogs that are racing have been kept in cages all day long. We have to have them get exercised," he said.

He also said the racetracks are highly regulated by the state police, and that state veterinarians come to the track every day. "In 40 years, there's never been a documented case of mistreatment or cruelty for animal here at Raynham Park," Temple said.

Temple also addressed the number of injuries in the industry, adding that people should look at the bigger picture.

"Since 2002, there were 714 injuries to be exact. And there were 465,176 races in Massachusetts for a percentage of 0.15 percent," he said. "Now, injury can be a broken toenail, or any kind of little cut. It doesn't have to be career-ending."

Then there is the argument over what the dogs are fed.

Dorchak said dogs are regularly given meat classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as unfit for human consumption.

"This is much cheaper and this is the basis of the diet in greyhound parks in Massachusetts," she said.

The committee's Web site includes a video display taken from the Wonderland Greyhound Park's Web site that shows the meat in a giant basket.

Temple said owners and breeders would not give poor quality food to their dogs, which represent an investment of $4,000 to $10,000.

Instead, Temple said the dogs are fed meals that are more expensive and contain more protein than the dog food people buy at a store.

"What sense would it make to feed a dog that represents a large investment something that would make them sick?" he said.

If Question 3 passes, it could affect the future of about 900 dogs and 700 race track workers at the Raynham park.

Dorchak said her group will do everything to ensure a better life for the dogs.

"During the 14-month-period, all of our endorsing organizations and veterinarians are going to be working to home out any available dog from the two race tracks," she said. "We look forward to doing that."

Temple said the racetracks have been involved in their own adoption programs. The Raynham racetrack has contributed $1.34 million to greyhound adoption programs in the last seven years, he said.

The Greyhound protection committee is also trying to establish a trust fund for retraining and supporting racetrack workers while they find "new and better" jobs.

Once the question passes, they will try to file a bill again, which was defeated in the past session, that takes trust fund money now made available to dog track owners and transfers it into a workers' retraining and welfare program.

But the two sides don't agree on the number of workers who would be affected. Dorchak, citing U.S. Census data, says there are fewer than 250 people working in the racing industry in Bristol County, where Raynham racetrack is located.

"We are talking about a couple of hundred people, we are not talking about thousands of people and we think this is a reasonable approach to help the dogs and also look out for any people who may be displaced," she said.

But Temple said 700 people's jobs are at stake at his park, along with other people such as trainers, dog owners and their suppliers.

"All those people will be out of work," he said.

The economic impact of the racetracks is significant not only to employees and racetrack owners, but also to local communities and the state.

"They say it's a dying industry, but we still pay a total of $8 million to the state in taxes," he said. The figure includes meals, corporate and real estate taxes.

"If it was such a bad business, we'd close it down ourselves," he said.

In the 2000 election, greyhound racetracks spent three times as much money as proponents of the ballot question.

Temple has not yet gotten the exact budget this time.

Dorchak is more hopeful this time.

"With the new measure, which has the backing of three major animal protection groups, we have much better chance of success for the greyhounds," she said.