Oh.My.Gosh. "Ich". Have had a home aquarium guy forever. Got a few Ich infestations (always after introducing new, store-bought fish). Although not the same strain (tropical usually is Ichthyophthirius Multifiliis). Sounds pretty much like the same infection progression. Me, and every other tropical aquarium enthusiast, HATES Ich. Now doubly so given a favorable opinion of wild salmon.
What happens when you get Ich in an aquarium: While tendrils start to show up then lengthen on your fish. You try a few treatments, but by the time you see it it cannot be stopped easily. When your fish are covered by pretty long white "shite" strands, they start to die. Worse than any horror film you might have seen. Man do I hate Ich.
If you continue just a little bit, when you get to the source, it should make things more clear. Considering the source is important, as is reading the article!
I wonder if the ones that make it to spawn had something in their genes to help them survive the parasites and warmer temperatures. Hopefully they do, and the overall population adapts.
It will frustrate me until the day I die the sheer NUMBER of problems directly attributable to human-caused climate change and how every government damn near world-wide simply refuses to do anything.
We know the fucking problem, we know the fucking solution, and we simply don't because the rich people would lose a bit of money and they control everything.
Warming and cooling would and will happen with people or without people -that's fact. The issue that many people have is about "when" it's happening. It upsets those that it's happening now as induced by people's activities and not by natural cycles or natural causes (eruptions, new species producing/emitting GHGs, etc.)
It is human caused. It simply is. We have decades of research all saying the exact same thing, some of which was funded directly by the energy industry trying desperately to prove it's not.
It is. This is not a debate anymore, if you disagree, you either don't understand or don't want to understand and neither of those is my or anyone else's problem to solve. You're wrong.
I share your frustration, but I think you're blaming the wrong group. The median voter simply does not care about climate change, and is not willing to shoulder any of the short-term costs necessary to address it. They'd rather have cheap gas for their car, not have to look at fields of solar panels, and signal their opposition to "wokeness".
The culture war bullshit you're referencing is a propaganda effort on the part of corporate media to manufacture outrage around policies their funding organizations and figures disagree with, namely the promotion of clean energy and weaning us off fossil fuels and cars more generally.
You aren't wrong but that block of ill-informed voters didn't simply manifest from the ether. It was created for a purpose and it's working.
Stop burning fossil fuels, build infrastructure to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Extract the minimum number of fossil fuels necessary to serve non-fuel uses.
It's definitely not easy, but it's not even particularly hard, either. The solutions are there and ready to go. Everything we need to do to solve it has been done before[1]. We have done and continue to do many more difficult things than solve climate change.
The only difference between the hard things we are doing, and solving climate change, is the latter would make the ludicrously-wealthy very slightly less wealthy, instead of very slightly more. That's it. That's the whole debate. That's what we're burning the planet for.
[1] With the exception of carbon capture, which is only necessary now because we wasted so long doing nothing.
I occasionaly imagine a satire skit where "The great mistery of the dissapearing Salmon" episode is done on fishing boat decks, fish plants and the super market fresh and canned fish sections, montyesk AMAZMENT! and OUTRAGE!, whilst the whole industrial mining operation goes on around them
If you’re implying that fishing is the main culprit, I’d invite you to do some further reading. These fisheries are carefully managed to ensure that salmon are able to spawn. Granted, there is the existence of trawling boats which do cause real harm. Yet, almost all commercial fishermen detest the practice of bottom trawling due to the harm it causes.
41 millions pounds of sockeye were caught in Bristol Bay this season. I was up there working on a boat myself. Yet, the rivers were still thick with sockeye at the end of the season. It is not a free-for-all where people are allowed to catch fish in any manner they want, the rules and regulations are there to ensure that fishing is not impacting the long-term viability of these runs.
Well the detesting trawling angle is valid but similar to how you could detect coal mining in West Virginia the mountains/sea bottom is gone either way.
I believe the single most important policy change for fishiers would be to end trawling, second being sort out international regs.
Both very hard, both bad news for kings. But at some point people are going to see the outcomes in their grocery stores and maybe that’ll start change.
The fisheries are carefully managed to keep the fishermen happy.
Whether or not that results in collapse of fishing stocks is down to greed and blind luck. When the coin lands heads, you get the Atlantic cod fishery collapse, where all the fishermen were insisting that the existing regulations were already onerous enough, and then one day there was no more cod.
Global warming is playing out in AK in a way only as observable down south with perhaps the dwindling skiing and the colo river. Wrapping that all up into how you phrased it is pretty darn close to the ol “greedy undisciplined Native” trope.
But sure, blame the tribes, and make sure it’s done extra strongly on the next sport fishing trip in Ak that can’t offer Kings as you’ll be seen as very aware of the issues by your guide.
Yes, the river system of about 10 others that the US successfully dammed up in the hot passion of 1950’s engineering culture run wild and successfully more or less ended the salmon runs south of British Columbia?
Yes, definitely the fishing patterns from tribes, not the 10-15 concrete dams.
Oh.My.Gosh. "Ich". Have had a home aquarium guy forever. Got a few Ich infestations (always after introducing new, store-bought fish). Although not the same strain (tropical usually is Ichthyophthirius Multifiliis). Sounds pretty much like the same infection progression. Me, and every other tropical aquarium enthusiast, HATES Ich. Now doubly so given a favorable opinion of wild salmon.
What happens when you get Ich in an aquarium: While tendrils start to show up then lengthen on your fish. You try a few treatments, but by the time you see it it cannot be stopped easily. When your fish are covered by pretty long white "shite" strands, they start to die. Worse than any horror film you might have seen. Man do I hate Ich.
Headline reads like these salmon are being killed by science.
I was intrigued because I genuinely thought that’s what it said.
It's not? Industrialization, pollution, and climate change are downstream effects of science.
They're all being killed by the big bang.
If you continue just a little bit, when you get to the source, it should make things more clear. Considering the source is important, as is reading the article!
hungmung's comment is alluding to the misleading syntax of the submission title
Yeah this should seriously be re-titled lmao
I wonder if the ones that make it to spawn had something in their genes to help them survive the parasites and warmer temperatures. Hopefully they do, and the overall population adapts.
https://archive.ph/2025.08.19-010419/https://www.science.org...
"Chinook in the Yukon River appear to be particularly vulnerable to a common parasite—and warming waters may be abetting the infection"
Different stories, same culprit everytime.
It will frustrate me until the day I die the sheer NUMBER of problems directly attributable to human-caused climate change and how every government damn near world-wide simply refuses to do anything.
We know the fucking problem, we know the fucking solution, and we simply don't because the rich people would lose a bit of money and they control everything.
Wouldn't it still be a problem if it wasn't human-caused?
Warming and cooling would and will happen with people or without people -that's fact. The issue that many people have is about "when" it's happening. It upsets those that it's happening now as induced by people's activities and not by natural cycles or natural causes (eruptions, new species producing/emitting GHGs, etc.)
Sure, but that's not what's happening.
It is human caused. It simply is. We have decades of research all saying the exact same thing, some of which was funded directly by the energy industry trying desperately to prove it's not.
It is. This is not a debate anymore, if you disagree, you either don't understand or don't want to understand and neither of those is my or anyone else's problem to solve. You're wrong.
I share your frustration, but I think you're blaming the wrong group. The median voter simply does not care about climate change, and is not willing to shoulder any of the short-term costs necessary to address it. They'd rather have cheap gas for their car, not have to look at fields of solar panels, and signal their opposition to "wokeness".
The culture war bullshit you're referencing is a propaganda effort on the part of corporate media to manufacture outrage around policies their funding organizations and figures disagree with, namely the promotion of clean energy and weaning us off fossil fuels and cars more generally.
You aren't wrong but that block of ill-informed voters didn't simply manifest from the ether. It was created for a purpose and it's working.
Wait, we know the solution? What is it?
Stop burning fossil fuels, build infrastructure to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Extract the minimum number of fossil fuels necessary to serve non-fuel uses.
The solution is not easy. But it is known.
> The solution is not easy. But it is known.
It's definitely not easy, but it's not even particularly hard, either. The solutions are there and ready to go. Everything we need to do to solve it has been done before[1]. We have done and continue to do many more difficult things than solve climate change.
The only difference between the hard things we are doing, and solving climate change, is the latter would make the ludicrously-wealthy very slightly less wealthy, instead of very slightly more. That's it. That's the whole debate. That's what we're burning the planet for.
[1] With the exception of carbon capture, which is only necessary now because we wasted so long doing nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyophonus
I occasionaly imagine a satire skit where "The great mistery of the dissapearing Salmon" episode is done on fishing boat decks, fish plants and the super market fresh and canned fish sections, montyesk AMAZMENT! and OUTRAGE!, whilst the whole industrial mining operation goes on around them
If you’re implying that fishing is the main culprit, I’d invite you to do some further reading. These fisheries are carefully managed to ensure that salmon are able to spawn. Granted, there is the existence of trawling boats which do cause real harm. Yet, almost all commercial fishermen detest the practice of bottom trawling due to the harm it causes.
41 millions pounds of sockeye were caught in Bristol Bay this season. I was up there working on a boat myself. Yet, the rivers were still thick with sockeye at the end of the season. It is not a free-for-all where people are allowed to catch fish in any manner they want, the rules and regulations are there to ensure that fishing is not impacting the long-term viability of these runs.
Well the detesting trawling angle is valid but similar to how you could detect coal mining in West Virginia the mountains/sea bottom is gone either way.
I believe the single most important policy change for fishiers would be to end trawling, second being sort out international regs.
Both very hard, both bad news for kings. But at some point people are going to see the outcomes in their grocery stores and maybe that’ll start change.
The fisheries are carefully managed to keep the fishermen happy.
Whether or not that results in collapse of fishing stocks is down to greed and blind luck. When the coin lands heads, you get the Atlantic cod fishery collapse, where all the fishermen were insisting that the existing regulations were already onerous enough, and then one day there was no more cod.
The killer is as always side effects and direct effects of global warming. Meaning humans are the killer.
[flagged]
Wait until you find out about Native American's unrestricted fishing rights and their use of modern commercial fishing ships and equipment.
Rich comment, but a an old one.
Global warming is playing out in AK in a way only as observable down south with perhaps the dwindling skiing and the colo river. Wrapping that all up into how you phrased it is pretty darn close to the ol “greedy undisciplined Native” trope.
But sure, blame the tribes, and make sure it’s done extra strongly on the next sport fishing trip in Ak that can’t offer Kings as you’ll be seen as very aware of the issues by your guide.
True on the Columbia river too
Yes, the river system of about 10 others that the US successfully dammed up in the hot passion of 1950’s engineering culture run wild and successfully more or less ended the salmon runs south of British Columbia?
Yes, definitely the fishing patterns from tribes, not the 10-15 concrete dams.
I cannot stand withholding headlines. single-celled fish parasite called Ichthyophonus
Especially on paywalled content.
The headline clearly says that 'Science' is the culprit.
without reading the article it must be humans.
Or the "global warming left the environment more hospitable to some horrible parasite/disease".
you missed the gory parasite details
Root cause is still humans. Parasite is thriving because of warming waters, caused by anthropogenic climate change.