With passive restoration, it will get there, but it may mean waiting 20 years or more. We now know wood is important because we have a lot of data to show this. But we still do not have a lot of experience 'fixing' things in complex systems. We can put wood back in some locations and hope it recreates the functions we lost. While I agree we need to try some things, we also need to be cautious and not make a lot of local decisions that add up to large-scale mistakes.
Passive restoration is a low-risk policy that requires time.
Active restoration is much more costly, will be difficult to afford on large scales, but may be useful where passive processes will take too long by themselves. They get people thinking of salmon when they make decisions, and the decisions are site specific. An area where quite a few fish biologists, and some other scientists, have similar views is on hatcheries. Not every scientist has a negative view of hatcheries. The hatchery fish came from native fish.