SHARON — The Selectboard is facing a decision about whether to take action concerning a dog that attacked a couple who were jogging past its owner’s home.

One person was bitten multiple times and had to seek medical treatment.

“We haven’t done one of these in a long, long time, at least not in the eight years I’ve been on the Selectboard,” said Chairman Kevin Gish at the outset of a special Selectboard meeting on Tuesday to consider a protective order.

The meeting was called following a complaint filed by a man who was bitten by a German Shepherd as he and his wife were jogging past a home on Fay Brook Road around noon on July 21, according to the complaint and investigation by the town’s animal control officer.

Under Vermont state law, if a domestic pet bites a person “without provocation” a town is permitted to enforce measures against the offending animal, including ordering it to be muzzled, contained or put down.

During Tuesday’s meeting, Selectboard members reviewed the state statute on an “unprovoked” dog attack and heard testimony from the dog’s owner.

A decision in regard to a protective order, however, was continued until the Selectboard’s next regular meeting on Monday at 6:30 p.m. in the town offices or by Zoom, when the victim is scheduled to testify about what happened.

The dog bite complaint, filed by a Sharon resident, alleged that “a large German Shepherd” rushed him as he jogged past.

“The dog ran toward me aggressively and jumped, latching hard onto my arm,” the jogger reported.

When the jogger tried to pull away, “the dog bit the side of my knee and scratched or bit (unclear) my lower leg,” he wrote.

The jogger struck the dog’s nose with his water bottle before the dog went toward his wife — who is pregnant — and “jumped at her barking and growling.”

At that point, the dog’s owner came out onto the road, grabbed the dog by the collar and got him under control, according to the incident report.

The jogger’s left arm “where the bites occurred was numb and swollen with 5-6 small tooth-sized cuts,” he wrote. In the aftermath, there was “bruising around the bite and significant pain.”

He also had bite marks or scratches on his knee and lower leg. The jogger declined to comment when contacted by the Valley News on Wednesday.

During Tuesday’s brief Selectboard meeting, the dog owner, speaking via Zoom, explained the incident unfolded when her dog Ziggy was on the front porch with her while she was “getting ready for my kid’s birthday party.”

The dog’s shock collar had been removed for charging, she said.

The road is obscured by a line of trees and shrubs in her front yard.

When “the joggers went by I had no idea they were there. They popped out, startling me,” the dog owner told the Selectboard members. “I made a noise. My dog reacted, ran out in the road. I was hot on his heels right behind him … I tried to get control of him. He jumped up on the guy, scratched his leg.”

“It’s all a blur,” she said.

The incident report prepared by Jim Ambruster, the town’s animal control officer, presents a slightly different account.

According to the report, which said it was based upon information the owner provided to Ambruster in a telephone interview, Ziggy was “going to the bathroom on the lawn when two runners appeared from behind the bushes at the edge of the driveway and startled him. He ran out into the road barking and then jumped on (the male runner), biting him on the arm.”

Once the owner was beside the dog, he calmed down, according to the report, and she and the jogger “exchanged information.”

“Both parties agreed that the dog was off the property and in the road, and it all would seem to be an unprovoked bite to me,” said Ambruster during Tuesday’s Selectboard meeting.

The owner told the Selectboard that she checked in with the runners following the attack and “offered to pay for the prescriptions and doctor’s visit.”

She acknowledged that Ziggy had not been current on his rabies vaccination.

According to the animal control officer’s report, the dog’s rabies vaccination certificate that his owner sent the jogger appeared “altered” to show the dog was current with his rabies vaccination when it had in fact expired earlier this year. The vaccination certificate that she texted to the jogger indicated Ziggy was due for his vaccination booster in “08” — August — but the certificate the town has on file showed it had expired in “03,” or March.

Ambruster said it is “unclear as to how that change occurred but there was a change between the original and the file that was sent to the dog bite victim.”

In his incident report, Ambruster wrote that when he had asked the owner about the discrepancy in vaccination booster dates, she “advised that she thought it was originally written as ‘08’ instead of ‘03’ as the writing was unclear. She thought part of the eight was missing and that (Ziggy) was due for a booster in August.”

“The threes looked like eights,” the owner offered again at Tuesday’s Selectboard meeting.

Ziggy is currently under “confinement,” which under town ordinances means he is required to stay on the owner’s property.

When he is released, “he’ll get his rabies with the vet. They’ll squeeze him in,” the owner said.

Vaccinations for her other two dogs are also expired, she acknowledged.

Since the incident, the owner noted that she has adopted extra containment measures, such as beginning to remove the shrubs in her front yard.

“So I have a clear line of sight and am not startled anymore,” she said.

The owner said she is also “looking at enclosing a spot for him in the front yard,” which would be in addition to the enclosed space in the backyard. And her household is now adhering to a regular schedule to charge Ziggy’s shock collar twice a week at night before putting it on in the mornings.

“I’ve worked with everyone in the house as to what is happening with the dog, making sure he is in his pen and doesn’t get out,” she said.

Asked for his opinion about the situation toward the end of the Selectboard meeting, Ambruster said that “there seems to be pretty good compliance on (the dog owner’s) part” but suggested that the town should record that “the dog has potentially vicious tendencies” in the event of a future problem.

When a reporter called the telephone number for the owner listed in the incident report, a woman who answered the phone denied she was listed owner and declined to comment.

Contact John Lippman at jlippman@vnews.com.