The biologists who manage the central part of the state's fisheries have a soft spot for illegally introduced fish. Instead of killing the bass at Davis and restoring it to a trophy trout lake - they have referred to Davis as their bass hatchery - since they take a few bass from there to stock in other lakes. Makes me wonder if the guy in charge down there belongs to B.A.S.S.?
There's places bass belong, and places they don't. Wickiup and Crane are places they simply don't belong. Those reservoir's location on the Deschutes makes getting rid of them a harder proposition than simply poisoning the place - because without a doubt, the poison would make it's way out of the lakes down stream into the free flowing sections of the river and damage native fish populations.
One way to rid Wickiup and Crane of the bass would be to institute a no-release policy on all bass caught, regardless of size. Hard to enforce, but it would have the potential effect of reducing the population to nothing or as near to nothing as possible. I'm sure there would even be groups of trout fisherman that would be willing to fish for the dinks once the big ones are gone. Little bass are suckers for wet flies.
Those big bass that the bass anglers want to protect are eating something - and I doubt it's mostly damsel fly nymphs. Big bass simply don't get big eating bugs - just like big trout. So that means that those bigger bass are eating fish. What fish would be most abundant for them to eat? Smaller trout and kokanee seem the likeliest food sources, don't they? And it doesn't take a "big" bass to start eating fish. I had an interesting chat with some guys out at Hagg last season - they were tossing big swim baits for bass - and the guy told me he's caught 10 inch bass on an 8 inch trout style swimbait. Obviously the appetite of the bass started to change sometime before he reached 10 inches. While a 10 inch bass isn't going to actually swallow an 8 inch trout - anything from a fry to a 4 inch parr is fair game for a bass that size.
ODFW simply should NOT favor, or place into the regulations any favorable rules to protect bass, carp, catfish, chub, perch, or any other illegally introduced species where they would have an impact on the traditional trout, salmon, or steelhead fisheries.
On another note - I do think there ought to be certain bodies of water managed for warm water fish. We might even consider *gasp* building some new impoundments that would be managed primarily for warm water species. There would, naturally, have to be some serious screening methods to prevent unintended release of these non-native fish into wild, free flowing waters. Even if that meant some sort of giant blender that puree'd anything that came through the spill way - so at the least, nothing would get through the spillway alive. It'd be like pink slime, but made of fish... that would even be a benefit to the fish in the tailwater below the dam - the extra nutrients provided by said fish-puree would boost bug populations, that would make for healthier populations of trout, salmon, steelhead, and whitefish.
I'm not anti-bass, anti-panfish, or even anti-carp. I love fishing for all of those species - but like I said before - there's places they don't belong. Davis, Wick, and Crane are places they don't belong.
Let's limit the name calling and using my initials to cast aspersions at other members... 
