The voices of the wives of ranchers are rarely heard, save for the periodic social media post or the whispered discussion in the produce section between women who understand what is asked of them and their families daily.

Amanda Cerveny and Nikki Day have been watching the wolf depredations on the McCabe Ranch and Lost Marbles Ranch from the front row as their husbands have experienced cattle depredations and the long process for compensation for their losses. The pair spoke to Dan Gates on his Through the Gates podcast in an episode titled, Here’s Those Wolves You Didn’t Ask For.

Cerveny said, with all she was dealing with on the ranch, with her family, keeping the schedules going, and working, she felt like she was watching the wolf news headlines with interest, but didn’t necessarily think her family would be affected.

Until they were.

“I think about this, it’s really hard for me not to get upset,” Cerveny said. “Everyone knew what we were getting before we knew that this was a problematic pack.”

She admits to reading the venomous comments on Facebook posts that blame “the ranchers” and subject them to intense scrutiny.

“I will say it a million times, it’s come from Jeff Davis himself,” she said. “These guys are doing everything they’re supposed to do, and you know, our guys have shown a lot of restraint. I’ll say this a million times and shout it from the rooftops — we didn’t ask for this.”

The women — who would fit in at an event or restaurant in your town or mine — said there is a major misconception about the ranchers themselves.

“They’re not whiskey drinking, horse whipping, dog kicking men,” Cerveny said. “These are men who are protective of the wildlife around them. They’re not out shooting bears who are out there being a problem, or mountain lions. They know they’re there and they work and navigate with that wildlife.”

She said the responsibility should be borne by the people who pushed to bring the wolf releases to voters.

“Doing the right thing is really important,” she said. “If you’re going to sell an idea, and you’re going to write the rules, and that’s what people buy into, then they have that trust in you and then you follow those rules.”

Elise Collins, another ranch wife in the Capitol Creek area, said the wolves were released in January of 2025, and she had a series of frightening run-ins with them. She said she was walking her dog in an open area, and a bull elk was chased out of the trees and jumped the fence in front of her, paying no mind to her presence. Three wolves exited the trees where the bull had come from and two more came over an irrigation ditch. Surrounded by five wolves, she said she began “screaming like a banshee.” She was between five wolves and the object of their chase. The wolves eventually left, and she went home and contacted CPW, which confirmed collar pings in her area at that time.

A few months later, a collared gray wolf walked through her front yard. She’s concerned for her dogs and her small grandchildren. It must be frustrating to know that her story received none of the attention I’m aware of, compared to stories about a jogger running across coyotes or a lion. Like they said, they never thought this would affect them.

The women said they hope voters recognize the similarities between themselves and “the ranchers” dealing with the consequences of a ballot-driven wildlife decision and continue to vote down future attempts of “ballot box Biology.”

In a rare on-camera interview with 9News, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Director Jeff Davis said those rules don’t, by law, have to be followed.

The Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan is a 261-page document that is the result of months of dialogue between stakeholders and is meant to guide Colorado Parks and Wildlife as they release wolves in the state. It guides the actual implementation, management, conflict management, and the monitoring and reporting that can be expected from the agency.

Davis said the exact wolf count in the state is difficult to know with pups being discovered, additions, losses, and uncollared individuals seemingly weekly. He said when people see him out and about and inquire about the wolves, their second question is always, “are you taking care of the ranchers?”

The compensation was in the news recently when a recorded phone call was released by Coberly Creek Ranch that captured a CPW investigator admitting she believed a killed calf was a result of a wolf, but that she was being pressured to not rule it as such. CPW had told the ranchers “investigators determined that it was improbable that a wolf killed the calf” while on the call, the investigator said, “I don’t like it, you’re not going to like it, is that everybody’s telling me I have to call it inconclusive and if I don’t call it inconclusive, they’re not, they’re going to argue with me.”

The state settled the dispute, agreeing to classify the loss as a wolf kill and pay compensation after the ranch’s attorney presented CPW with the recording. It is, as Davis said, an example of how the biology of wolves is the simple part and the social piece is the real trick.

As for the Wolf Management Plan, Davis admitted that his decision to capture and then re-release the Copper Creek pack was a deviation rather than a violation. Davis said that Attorney General Phil Weiser, who is running for governor, advised him that the Plan isn’t legally binding, but is merely a plan. That certainly doesn’t feel like an agreement that will be valued and honored.

Rachel Gabel writes about agriculture and rural issues. She is assistant editor of The Fence Post Magazine, the region’s preeminent agriculture publication.