Council committee hears veterinarian describe parvovirus outbreak, 19 euthanasias and gaps in shelter operations

St. Louis County Council members heard sworn testimony June 26 describing a parvovirus outbreak at the county animal shelter that, according to the witness, resulted in roughly 19 animals being euthanized over several days and exposed weaknesses in shelter staffing, quarantine capacity and clinical supplies.

The hearing focused on testimony from Dr. Douglas Pernicoff, a veterinarian who worked in the shelter after the county assumed operations earlier this year. Pernicoff said the first clinically positive dog (which he described as “patient 1”) surfaced in mid-April inside a large kennel that could not be isolated. He told the committee that the shelter lacked legitimate isolation space and sufficient staffing and supplies to treat multiple parvovirus cases at once, and that those constraints were central to the decision to euthanize infected animals.

Why it matters: The testimony ties operational shortfalls — limited quarantine cages, shortages of IV lines and other supplies, and a delayed set of county standard operating procedures — to life-or-death decisions taken during a fast-moving infectious outbreak. Council members and public speakers used the hearing to press for document production, clarity on who had authority to approve procedures, and additional funding or policy changes to reduce future risk.

Pernicoff said the first positive animal was detected in kennel 500 and “we had to leave it there. There was no place for legitimate isolation and quarantine of that animal.” He said staff implemented PPE and increased cleaning and revaccination, and that after the first confirmed case additional dogs began showing clinical signs over a period of days. "We did what we felt based on all the literature and all the communication was the right thing to do to protect this population," Pernicoff told the committee. He characterized the response as attempting to stop a rapidly spreading infection, comparing it to firefighters creating a controlled burn to stop a forest fire.

Pernicoff said he created and circulated an abbreviated parvovirus protocol after the first positive test but that it was not officially signed by the shelter’s leadership before the mass euthanasias. He told council members he "was remiss in not calling" Dr. Cunningham directly to notify her before euthanasias began; he apologized for that lapse. Pernicoff said the supervisory group implementing euthanasia decisions included veterinary staff (he named an LVT, Nikki Bennett), the population manager (identified in testimony as Alyssa Cataba), and ACOs on site.

Committee members pressed Pernicoff on whether euthanasia decisions were made unilaterally. He said decisions were generally made by a supervisory team and not by a single person; for parvovirus cases the core decision-makers were the veterinary team and the population manager. On documentation, Pernicoff said euthanasia and intake entries were recorded in the Chameleon shelter-management system but that he could not confirm whether those entries automatically notified higher-level supervisors.

Pernicoff detailed resource constraints he said hindered treatment: a lack of IV supplies, an inability to obtain rapid serology kits and a decision not to use monoclonal antibodies because of their cost (he estimated treatment costs of roughly $1,100–$1,200 per large dog). He also said county procurement rules limited vendor options and delayed acquiring needed items; he described repeated requests for equipment and supplies that were not fulfilled before he left the shelter in early May.

On procedures and authority: Pernicoff said the Animal Protective Association (APA) had left in early February and that the county’s modified playbook/standard operating procedures did not arrive for review until very late (he estimated the final SOPs reached staff the first week of May). He described having circulated a decision-tree for euthanasia that he hoped would standardize decisions, but that it was not fully implemented. Pernicoff also said that departmental leaders, including Dr. Burris (identified in testimony as assistant at the Department of Public Health) and others, were “in and out” of the shelter and that he believed senior managers had awareness of the outbreak, though he acknowledged not always notifying Dr. Cunningham directly prior to euthanasia actions.

Public testimony and legal oversight: The committee took official notice of Saint Louis County ordinances and resolutions at the hearing opening, and multiple witnesses were identified as present under subpoena. Council members requested scanned copies of documents provided by Pernicoff and discussed the large set of records produced to the committee (the transcript references a document production described by staff as about 28,000 pages). Members said they would seek targeted Chameleon export records to trace intake-to-euthanasia timelines for specific animals.

Public commenters and shelter advocates testified after Pernicoff. Shelter medicine specialists and advocates urged increased funding, facility retrofits to create isolation/quarantine capacity, changes to procurement and acceptance-of-donations rules (one speaker urged passage of Bill 116 to allow more flexible acceptance of grants and donations), and use of fee-waived adoptions as a population-reduction tool (one speaker supported Bill 41). A public commenter urged increased spay/neuter programs countywide and alignment of household-pet limits with neighboring jurisdictions.

What the committee asked for next: Council members pressed health department counsel and staff to ensure production of Chameleon logs and other records tied to the euthanized animals, and several council members signaled they will follow up on procurement, SOP timing, and whether supplemental operational funds were requested and approved. No formal votes were taken during the hearing; the committee ended with procedural direction to continue the inquiry and possibly reconvene the witness.

Pernicoff closed by summarizing his view that the shelter’s problems were primarily a funding and resourcing issue — "funding, which means staffing and supplies" — and that with adequate staff, supplies and reconfigured space the shelter could operate safely. "A proper shelter program can be your best asset for a county like this, or it can be your worst headache," he said.

Ending: Council members and staff said they will continue document review and ask follow-up questions at a later session; several members asked legal staff to obtain targeted Chameleon records for the animals at issue and to clarify what county ordinances permit in accepting donated equipment or services.