10(j) and 4(d) rules have always been in effect for the "experimental non-essential" wolf populations.

Landowners suffering depredations from the "experiment non-essential" populations have always been able to shoot wolves please refer to:

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr4369.pdf

Exerpt:
[/font][align=left][/align][align=left]Three special rules currently apply to wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. The two 1994 10(j) experimental population rules allow flexibility in the management of wolves, including authorization for private citizens to non-injuriously harass wolves and take wolves that are in the act of attacking livestock on private land, without a permit. These rules also provide a permit process that similarly allows the take, under certain circumstances, of wolves in the act of attacking livestock on public land. In addition, they allow opportunistic noninjurious harassment of wolves by livestock producers on private and public grazing lands, and also allow designated government employees or Service-designated agents under specified circumstances to perform nonlethal and lethal control to remove problem wolves. The 1994 rules allow States and Tribes to define unacceptable impacts on native ungulate herds and relocate wolves to reduce wolf predation. They also provide a mechanism for increased State and Tribal participation in wolf management, if cooperative agreements are developed to make them designated agents of the Service. [/align][align=left][/align][align=left]The 2003 4(d) rule for the Western DPS outside of the Central Idaho and Yellowstone NEP areas allows landowners and permittees on Federal grazing allotments to harass wolves in a non-injurious manner at any time. Like the 1994 10(j) rules, the 4(d) rule allows[/align][align=left]flexibility in the management of wolves, including authorization for private citizens on private land to noninjuriously harass wolves and take wolves that are in the act of attacking livestock, livestock herding or guarding animals, or dogs without a permit. The 4(d) rule also provides a written authorization process that allows the taking, under certain circumstances, of wolves on public land in the act of attacking livestock or livestock herding or guarding animals. In addition, it allows designated government employees or Service-designated agents to perform non-lethal and lethal control to remove problem wolves under specified circumstances. The 4(d) rule allows take of wolves under written authorization in a few more[/align][align=left]circumstances than the 1994 10(j) rules.[/align][align=left][/align][align=left]Like the 1994 10(j) rules, the 4(d) rule allows the State and Tribes to define unacceptable impacts on native ungulate herds and relocate wolves to reduce wolf predation. The 4(d) rule, like the 1994 10(j) rules, also provides a mechanism for increased State and Tribal participation in wolf management, if cooperative agreements are developed to make them designated agents of the Service. A table comparing the parameters of wolf management in this final 10(j) rule with those in the 1994 10(j) rules, and with the 4(d) rules, is included as part of this rule.[/font][font=melior-bold][/align]

I believe that the MI, WI etc populations is classified as "endangered". This means that population wasn't reintroduced and has been naturally expanding from Canada or whatever. The same thing is true for the northern tip of Idaho and parts of NW Montana. This, to me, is total BS. We should be managing them all as "experimental, non-essential". There should be no "endangered" northern population segments. For Pete's sake Canada has a season on them but below the border they are endangered? I have a big beef with that designation. We have found Canadian "endangered" wolves all the way down in central Idaho. So they shouldn't be exempt from the 10(j) and 4(d) rules.