As someone who has done a lot of research into animal issues, I was recently asked about what to do in a situation where your dog is attacked by another dog and the owner refuses to pay for vet costs.

As it happens, I was involved in a similar situation, when my staffie attacked a neighbour's dog.

In my case, I immediately offered to pay for any vet and medical costs to the aggrieved party — my neighbour — and implemented humane training methods for my dog.

(Humane training, or at least Alana Stevenson's humane training, involves science-based training methods that are non-violent and non-dominating, as opposed to other non-violent approaches that include techniques such as eating in front of your dog before they eat or ignoring them when they come in the house — to show you're "above" them.)

Needless to say my offer to pay costs instantly defused the situation with my neighbours, and we remained on good terms, often stopping to chat in the street. As animal lovers themselves, they had been reluctant to get the local council involved as they had not wanted to see my dog destroyed.

But it left open the question of what legal recourse people have if their dog is attacked, and reminded me of the need to redefine the legal definitions around animals — particularly those many of us have come to consider as members of our families.

Is your property a danger to others?

Many people may be surprised to discover that a dog attack is actually classed as a property dispute, as dogs are considered personal property under the law — as distinct from "natural persons" (humans) and corporations.

So in this case, what has happened legally is that one person's property has damaged another's.

Those who have their dogs attacked can face a difficult road recovering veterinary costs, and would most likely have to pursue their case as a civil property damage claim in their local magistrates court.

In Victoria, you are responsible for any damage your "property" causes. ( Website: Tekkaus.com )

This could mean high legal costs just to claim a potentially small amount of money back.

State laws differ, but in Victoria you are responsible for any damage your "property" causes and must shoulder the financial consequences. More often than not, this involves paying for any vet bills or being compelled by the local council to appear in a magistrates court.

If the council declares your dog as dangerous they will hold it until the magistrate makes a final decision. What happens to the dog after that point will depend on in you are found guilty or not guilty.

If you are found not guilty of the charges, the dog will be returned and the court may order the council to pay your legal costs. If you are found guilty, penalties may include jail, fines, payment of court and council costs and any damages, or being banned from owning a dog for up to 10 years.

You may be required to attend a training course on responsible pet ownership or dog obedience training. An order may be made to have your dog destroyed.

He, she, or it — do dogs have rights?

The legal reality of dogs as property is in stark contrast to the way many of us see the dogs that inhabit our homes.

"Fur baby" was added to both the Oxford English and Macquarie Dictionaries in 2015. ( ABC Gold Coast: Damien Larkins )

Sixty-five per cent of households with dogs viewed their dogs as members of the family, according to the 2016 report Pet Ownership in Australia by Animal Medicines Australia, up from 59 per cent in 2013.

A total of 38 per cent of Australians live with dogs, up by 3 per cent from 2013, making them clearly the most popular species of animal companion.

The report notes that such a view is reflected in the term "fur baby", a word that was added to both the Oxford English and Macquarie Dictionaries in 2015, and indicates the relationship between pets and people has become much more personal.

However, signs of this property status of animals persist in the language we use to describe dogs. When referring to humans, we generally use "he", "she" or "they" to describe someone; in contrast, when talking about dogs, the word "it" is often used.

This language both reflects and contributes to the legal reality of dogs as property, and this language and these laws are by no means limited to dogs — all animals are classified as property under the law.

It's not just a philosophical matter but something that has a very real impact on the lives and deaths of animals.

It means that animals can legally be killed simply because they are no longer useful to humans, whether they are a dog who people no longer want as a companion or a cow who is born male and therefore can't produce milk to profit the dairy industry.

There is growing concern for dogs and animals generally in Australia. ( Supplied: Alma Sarhan )

Should the law recognise a dog like a person?

As a sociologist, I'm more focused on social aspects like attitudes, behaviours, language and the like, but legally giving dogs a similar legal status to humans seems the best case scenario to me.

Obviously, some rights like voting are neither needed — nor desired — for dogs, just as they are not needed or desired for young children. But as legal "persons", they could be given some meaningful protections.

Sorry, this video has expired Regular raids demonstrate the limited protections granted to animals, despite their being regarded as property.

Lawyer Gary Francione has written a lot on the topic, calling for legal personhood for all animals.

And specific species in specific countries have already been granted legal personhood — for example, dolphins have been classified as legal persons under Indian law. This means that they cannot not be killed or held captive for entertainment in India.

There is growing concern for dogs and animals generally in Australia: consider the large protests in Australia against puppy mills and live exports, as well as decreasing support for jumps racing and duck shooting.

There are some limited protections granted to animals despite their being regarded as property, but they aren't that different to protections for other types of property. For example, in order to own a car, we have to register it, maintain it to some basic level to be entitled to own that property.

Pretty similar to owning a pet, there are some very basic things we are not allowed to do in terms of maintaining our property, or using our property in an acceptable manner, but no meaningful protections.

For example, people can leave a dog outside, never walk them, never interact with them or give them any interactions with people or other animals and that is still an acceptable use of the property, despite this having a very detrimental impact on the dog's quality of life and mental health.

People can leave a dog outside, never walk them, never interact with them, and that is still an acceptable use of the property. ( Flickr: Bernadette Dye )

Lawyer Steven White argues that the "current legal construction of domestic animals" is "as objects of absolute ownership" rather than "guardianship". In an academic article, he writes that "the legal characterisation of companion animals as personal property…[means that] when circumstances demand, a companion animal is a dispensable item — an object of property that can be disposed of when it is no longer convenient to continue owning it".

If the growing concern for animals referred to above doesn't challenge this view of animals as property — in law, language and practice — then the gains that come out of this concern will always be limited.

Push for a new definition

Thankfully, this view is being challenged, with some activists pushing for changes to the legal definition of non-human animals.

There have been large protests in Australia against puppy mills. ( Supplied: RSPCA )

Mr Francione is key among them, as is Mr Wise, focusing first on "higher" species of animals like chimpanzees.

Mr Wise was recently quoted in a Fairfax article as saying: "At one time, not all human beings were considered 'persons' — children, women and slaves were simply the property of men. We're saying that, based on clear scientific evidence, it is time to take the next step and recognise that certain animals cannot continue to be exploited as property."

Others argue we should work within the property status of animals to try and achieve the limited gains that are possible within this framework. This is a key debate within the animal activist movement.

The issue of dog attacks exposes a lack of specific laws around this issue, but also the more general issue of dogs and other animals being viewed as no more than property under the law.

Nick Pendergrast has a PhD in sociology, with a focus on the animal advocacy movement in Australia and the United States. He teaches sociology at the University of Melbourne.