Waldo-sounds like you got a hair up your kazoo? Why all the agressiveness? I think your required reading list should add Freud's "Id" alongside Darwin's "Origin".

You are attacking the wrong people. This is a group of very conservation minded people. The comment that C&R is an excuse to deplete the resource is absolutely indefensible. Comments like that discredit the good things you did have to say.
Habitat is an enormous issue. When electricity is deregulated will you be willing to pay a few cents more per KwH to buy "green" energy (if that even exists. I'm sure that harnessing wind power will confuse migrating ducks and they'll fly to Palm Springs for the winter instead of Mexico).
I know I will.
Indiscriminate filling of creels with 10 inch "trout" in streams has reduced the reserve gene pool for our steelhead, as those fish are juvenile steelhead, not trout, which was the main finding of the Kamchatka studies. That has been effectively stopped in our state, hopefully not too late. A great majority of barbless hook, no bait, requirements are there to protect those fish.
Nets of any sort, ocean or terminal, have had significant impacts on our anadromous fish runs. See the posts below about terminal fish trap fisheries. If we are to have a commercial fishery, that's where it should be.

Here are a few simple points:

Gillnetted fish = 100% mortality.
Fish caught and killed = 100% mortality
Fish ground to paste in dam turbine = 100% mortality
Fish eaten by bear = 100% mortality
Fish caught and released = 5 % mortality
Fish caught and released five times = 25% mortality

Fish that are alive can spawn. Those that are dead cannot. Many things affect the mortality of fish. Many are a lot worse than C&R. NO ONE claims that C&R is perfect, nor that it is the answer. However, I and others do claim that it is a better answer than catch and kill.
Perhaps No Fishing would be better for fish. That would remove some mortality. No doubt about it.
Ripping on WDFW and Bruce Crawford for complying with federal law is disingenuous at best, ignorant and spiteful at worst. The Boldt decision mandates a minimum escapement with 50/50 harvest of the rest. I don't like it, nor does 97% of the State's population. If you fight it, you lose. It is a fact that will not change anymore than we can change the weather or ocean currents to improve fish survival. Deal with it how you can.
With a few exceptions, the guides I know do not allow killing natives on their watch. They tell their clients that right up front and ship them along if they don't agree.
Our Washington guides are a credit to our fisheries, and ripping on them is another totally indefensible statement. Education is the only way to get the general public to open their eyes, ears, and minds to protecting steelhead. I can talk until I'm blue in the face about how great a steelhead is, but nothing compares to a day on a river, see a few eagles, maybe a herd of elk, and catch and release a couple of natives. That's enough education to make many, many people decide that steelhead protection is a good idea.
You speak with big words and big ideas. You need some big education and some big exposure to the realities of the situation.
Tip for the future: While those of us who regularly participate in heated discussions on this board welcome all opinions and ideas, whether we agree or not, being agressive and attacking us will get you absolutely no where. What do you expect from a bunch of redneck jackasses?
Fish on....
Todd.

By the way, I'm a marine fisheries biologist with a law degree practicing in environmental law in Washington. I'll try to throw in a few bigger words next time.

Have a day.