(Reuters) - When armed robbers stole two of Lady Gaga's French bulldogs last week, non-fatally shooting her dog walker after he refused to hand over his furry charges, the musician responded by offering $500,000 for the return of her pets.

With their adorable smushed faces and petite-yet-stocky builds, French bulldogs are both popular and pricey. Browsing online, I found puppies for sale for $1,000 to $8,500.

Yet the pop star was willing to pay half a million dollars – something like 100 times her dogs' market value – as a reward.

It's a move that highlights an anomaly in our legal system.

In the eyes of the law, pets have historically been viewed as property. Their worth under tort law recovery is generally limited to an owner's economic losses, as if you'd replace a dog the same way you would a car.

The good news is, Lady Gaga got Koji and Gustav back. A woman said she found the dogs tied to pole and turned them in to the police on Feb. 27, according to the Los Angeles Times. A spokesperson for Lady Gaga did not respond to a request for comment.

But as Gaga's over-the-top reward demonstrates, most people don't consider their companion animals to be fungible property. Not even close.

According to a 2018 survey by the American Veterinary Medical Association, 85% of dog owners consider their pet to be a member of the family, as do 76% of cat owners.

I'm with the majority here. I have two large-ish rescue dogs of indeterminate breed. To me, they are among the most precious things in the world. But I'm also pretty sure their fair market value is zero (sorry Merlin and Cassie).

How is it that under the law, their lives can mean everything to me but also have virtually no monetary value?

"The purpose of tort law is to ensure that victims of wrongful conduct are fully compensated for the harm. If someone values their animal's companionship, then the law should appreciate that value," Animal Legal Defense Fund managing attorney Christopher Berry told me. "Right now, the legal system isn't fulfilling its purpose."

If someone negligently injures or kills your pet, he added, "It is crystal clear that our emotional bond and love for the animal should factor into the equation."

Should, yes.

Does? Not so much.

For example, the Texas Supreme Court in a high-profile case in 2013 considered whether to allow emotion-based damages after a shelter accidentally euthanized a family's dog.

A mixed-breed named Avery escaped the Medlen family's backyard and was nabbed by Fort Worth animal control. The Medlens alerted the shelter that they would be picking up Avery, but before they were able to pay the fee to retrieve him, a worker mistakenly put him to sleep.

The Medlens sued. As a mixed breed, Avery had no market value, but the Medlens pointed to past holdings that allowed Texas property owners to be awarded damages based on the sentimental value of lost personal property, such as family keepsakes.

Because dogs are considered property under Texas law, they should be treated no differently than, say, grandma's wedding veil or great-grandpa's pistol, the Medlens argued in pushing for sentimental damages.

They won at the appellate level, but the Texas high court reversed, adhering to an 1891 decision that held a dog's "'special or pecuniary value' refers not to the dog-human bond but to the dollars-and-cents value traceable to the dog's usefulness and services," then Justice Don Willett, now a 5th Circuit judge, wrote. "The valuation criteria is not emotional and subjective; rather it is commercial and objective."

As unsatisfying as the holding might be, the court raised some valid public policy concerns shared by dog-loving groups including The American Kennel Club.

AKC vice president of government relations Sheila Goffe told me that if courts opened the door to pet-related emotional injury claims such as loss of companionship, there could be unintended negative consequences.

For example, the cost of veterinary care would almost surely jump as a result of new malpractice liabilities. "We are concerned that if the costs become too prohibitive, people might not take their dogs to the vet," Goffe said.

The cost of animal medicines would likely rise too, she said, not to mention prices for grooming, dog walking and other animal-related services.

"Our dogs to us are members of our families and our relationships with them are priceless," she said. Yes, animals are property, but the law already recognizes their special status by barring mistreatment, she said, adding "We don't have laws preventing cruelty to chairs."

Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila of counsel Bruce Wagman, who is the only lawyer running an exclusive animal law practice in a major U.S. firm, noted that courts around the country have continued to struggle with the legal status of animals, whether in determining who gets custody of a pet in divorce proceedings or looking for legally supported ways to nudge up damages awards in suits involving companion animals.

"The fact that animals are property doesn't mean we can't provide a whole lot of protection," Wagman said.

Opinions expressed here are those of the author. Reuters News, under the Trust Principles, is committed to integrity, independence and freedom from bias.