Catch and Release vs Keep?

[Big Sky]

The recent post about keeping a bass and receiving a lot of hate for doing so is what inspired this post. I spend a lot of time fishing, and talking with other fishermen, as well as fish biologist. In fact, one of my closest hunting partner's is a fish biologist with over 30 years experience. So even though we are hunting often our conversations are about fishing. One thing I have come to learn is despite the popularity of catch and release there are times when it causes more harm than good to a fishery. Any body of water where the fish are stunted, or over populated, whether it's bass, perch, bluegill, brook trout or what have you, releasing fish is not going to help the situation. With that said I release 99% of what I catch. I know that seems hypocritical. However, it's not because I feel some moral obligation to do so. I don't care much for the taste of most fresh water fish, but I love to catch them. The only real exceptions being I like burbot-ling, and once in a great while, I will keep a tiger trout or two to eat. I generally avoid areas that have stunted fish, or more specifically I avoid targeting them. It's because I do feel guilty putting them back, but I have absolutely no use for them if I keep them. I wish more fishermen/women would educate themselves on the upside and downside of catch and release fishing. I can honestly say I have zero problem with people keeping their legal limit of fish. I do have a problem with people telling me what I should or shouldn't do with the fish I catch though.

This site has a good cross section of people that fish quite a bit. I'm am curious what are some of y'alls thoughts are on catch and release vs keep?