Most governments ban sports like dog and cock fighting that call for animals to maim or kill each another. But society has not reached accord on whether animal racing, which involves the risk of injury or death, is inherently cruel. Nor have we.

This year, lawmakers will again debate whether New Hampshire should join the 34 states that have outlawed live greyhound racing.

Photographs taken by the state's Pari-Mutuel Commission - they can be seen on voteforthedogs.org, a website of the legislative sponsors of the ban - prove that a racing dog's life is no romp in the park. Most spend the bulk of their time in kennels in stacked cages similar to those used to house chickens. Injuries, including some that prove fatal, as in horse racing, come with the endeavor.

The racing industry disputes the contention that its sport is cruel and cites the care and medical attention the animals are required by law to receive. They also point to the many greyhounds that are adopted because they make loving and lovable pets. A ban on live racing would put the tracks out of business, cost the state some $1.6 million in revenue, according to the pari-mutuel commission, and throw 500 or so people out of work.

If it were a ban that closed the tracks, that would almost certainly be true. Live dog racing represents a small fraction of the revenue taken in by the tracks. But under current state law the tracks must hold at least 50 days of live racing per year to book bets on races simulcast from other states or hold live races on every simulcast betting day.

Those races, with top dogs, big purses and large payouts, account for the bulk of track revenue. They draw high rollers to New Hampshire from other states, people who wager hundreds of thousands of dollars per year or more and, as a consequence, are treated like royalty. Some of that money makes its way to the state's general fund, the local property tax base and the economy.

New Hampton Rep. Fran Wendleboe has offered a compromise that could end live racing without a ban and save state revenue and jobs. Instead of making live races illegal, the state should drop the requirement that the tracks must hold live races to offer off-track betting.

The state's share of the handle from live greyhound racing averaged about $425 per day in 2005 and 2006, according to the Pari-Mutuel Commission. That's chickenfeed. And tracks lose money on live races. So it's hard to believe they would continue to hold them if given the option not to. Nor will any grand old New Hampshire tradition die with the demise of dog racing. The state's first greyhound races were held in Hinsdale in 1972, and the racetracks in Seabrook and Belmont opened a few years later.

At least one track opposes Wendleboe's plan because its owners fear that if live racing is banned, lawmakers will be less likely to allow the tracks to install video slot machines someday. But if true, so what? The slot machine argument should run on its own merits, not ride on the backs of live dogs.

Letting market forces decide the fate of the dogs is a good idea. As Wendleboe says, her compromise won't end live dog racing everywhere. But we're willing to bet it will end them in New Hampshire.