County witness describes parvovirus outbreak, says 19 shelter animals euthanized amid staffing and supply shortfalls

Dr. Douglas Pernicoff, a veterinarian who served at the St. Louis County animal shelter, told the Committee of the Whole on June 26 that a parvovirus outbreak in April led to about 19 animals being euthanized.

Pernicoff said the first clinically positive case — which he identified as “patient 1” — was in kennel 500 and was left in general population because the shelter had “no place for legitimate isolation and quarantine.” He testified the facility had roughly 240 animals at the time and that the outbreak spread rapidly across multiple kennels in a matter of days.

“The animal became clinical with diarrhea and vomiting,” Pernicoff said of the first positive dog. “We did a parvo test, and it came up positive.” He added that staff implemented personal protective equipment and revaccination, and that the shelter later identified and euthanized additional clinically positive dogs.

Why it mattered: Committee members were seeking detail after the county takeover from the Animal Protective Association (APA) earlier in 2025. Pernicoff framed the losses as the result of a confluence of operational limits — insufficient isolation space, low staffing levels, constrained procurement, and a delayed finalization of standard operating procedures — rather than a single decision.

Details from the hearing

- Scope and timing: Pernicoff said he began working at the shelter on Jan. 21, 2025, returned after an earlier resignation, and that his employment ended after a May 9 meeting. He placed the outbreak’s earliest clinical positive in mid-to-late April and said most of the subsequent euthanasias occurred over a short 2–4 day span.

- Counts and population: Pernicoff testified that roughly 19 animals linked to the parvovirus incident were euthanized. He estimated the shelter held about 240 animals at the time, and he said kennel 500 housed more than 25 dogs that were exposed when the first case presented in general population.

- Treatment and capacity constraints: Pernicoff described the standard-of-care for parvovirus treatment as involving IV fluids, anti-nausea medications, antibiotics and intensive one-on-one care. He told the council the shelter lacked sufficient intravenous (IV) supplies, staffing and space to provide intensive treatment for dozens of animals. He also said monoclonal antibody therapy — a higher-cost treatment option — would have cost roughly $1,100–$1,200 per large dog and therefore was not feasible within the shelter’s budget.

- Protocols and decision-making: Pernicoff said he had drafted a euthanasia decision tree and circulated it to supervisors and to veterinary colleagues, but that it was never formally adopted. He also said he distributed an “abbreviated parvovirus protocol” after the first positive case; according to his testimony, that protocol was not signed off by Dr. Cunningham before the euthanasias began.

- Notification and chain of command: Pernicoff acknowledged he did not personally notify Dr. Cunningham before euthanasias began and said that omission was “my mishap.” He also testified that Assistant Department of Public Health Dr. Burris and other on-site supervisors were on the ground and that he expected they communicated with upper management. He told the committee: “I was remiss in not calling her that we were gonna euthanize animals, but I'm sure she was aware of what was going on.”

- Records and evidence: Pernicoff said the shelter used a records system called Chameleon and that euthanasia and intake records should be retrievable there. He also testified that final St. Louis County standard operating procedures (SOPs) did not arrive for review until approximately the first week of May.

- Procurement and supplies: Pernicoff told the council the shelter lacked key supplies — IV lines, an IDEXX blood machine and some medicines — and described procurement obstacles in the county system. He said staff had requested antigen/serology kits and other diagnostic materials during the outbreak but had not received them before he left.

What committee members pressed on

Council members asked whether euthanasia decisions were made unilaterally or by a group. Pernicoff said decisions during the parvovirus response were made by a veterinary team and the population manager, typically involving three to five people, and that the intent was to use majority rule rather than unilateral decisions. He described “morning huddles” and supervisory meetings where lists of potential animals for euthanasia were reviewed.

Council members also asked whether the first positive dog had received intake vaccines; Pernicoff said that animal had never had an intake vaccine, calling that a “breach of protocol.” Councilors questioned the timing of notifications to upper management and asked whether quarantine extensions and other containment steps were properly authorized and sustained.

Context and background

The committee convened to continue its review of shelter operations since the county assumed direct control from the Animal Protective Association earlier this year. During his testimony Pernicoff compared the county program’s staffing and vendor restrictions unfavorably with APA’s prior operations, saying APA had more daily cage-cleaning staff and broader vendor access.

Pernicoff also described a long-term view of changes he suggested: more isolation/quarantine space, higher daily kennel staffing, streamlined procurement for critical supplies, and clearer, signed SOPs for outbreak response and euthanasia decisions.

Quote from the witness

“I was remiss in not calling her that we were gonna euthanize animals,” Pernicoff told the council. “It was really the heat of the activity. You all of a sudden have 25 animals showing positive with clinical signs and serology, and, you know, our reaction was we gotta do something.”

What happens next

The committee accepted additional documents and subpoenaed materials were discussed during the meeting and staff said more hearings and follow-ups are likely. Council members asked the county and Health Department counsel to provide Chameleon records and other intake/euthanasia logs for the relevant time frame so the committee can verify timelines and decision records.

Ending note: The hearing made clear that the committee is focused on operational gaps — staffing, space and procurement — and on whether supervisory and communication channels were used effectively during the parvovirus response.