Colorado Results?

Same here.

2nd choice elk, based on the CC hit and increased points. While I received emails on deer (2nd choice) and moose (point), I've received no emails on pronghorn or elk yet.
 
No soap. Kind of disappointed but it was the 1st. time I ever put in for a CO draw. So I'm still goin otc archery elk though so I got that going for me. Congrats to all who drew. Git some! (y)
 
damn, it is now clear and true - my 3rd choice which was leftover last year was not leftover this year
 
My elk points have been updated. Says they added a point May 15, so the draw occurred 20 days ago. :rolleyes:

They still haven't told me successful or not (I've been charged so know I drew my 2nd choice).

Man this has been a strange 'draw' (really 'results' not 'draw' since according to the preference point addition details, moose was drawn 5/8, deer 5/12, elk 5/15).

My inclination is to say they have some crazy, interconnected and likely very manual integration routines and have to invoke a bunch of different steps to get everything released (they acknowledged one or two, but seeing this debacle points to the broken process being more holistic). Net result is they are making it more confusing to everyone and generating a ton of Customer Service contacts. Really bad optics. Enough people (non-HT'ers of course) are already confused about how preference points work in general.

Maybe we need that joker down in NM thats getting everyone's information to litigate CO for a Draw Audit?

On-Topic: I'm back in the deer point business after a 12 month hiatus, I guess. Tag was a ~30% chance with 0 points in 2019 so not super surprising. I didnt get my hybrid Elk tag either.
 
I had put in for an elk PP only. When I got the email today the first word I saw was "unsuccessful". What the hell? Then I realized that is just stock wording for a PP awarded. They really could put a little more effort into that 🤣
 
My inclination is to say they have some crazy, interconnected and likely very manual integration routines and have to invoke a bunch of different steps to get everything released (they acknowledged one or two, but seeing this debacle points to the broken process being more holistic). Net result is they are making it more confusing to everyone and generating a ton of Customer Service contacts. Really bad optics. Enough people (non-HT'ers of course) are already confused about how preference points work in general.
Aspira has been a failure from the beginning. I believe that CPW committed so much time and money to the process that they were reluctant to shift gears with a new vendor...time and time again. You can go back and listen to commission discussions about Aspira's failures, yet they pushed forward. Now we are stuck with this abomination.
 
Aspira has been a failure from the beginning. I believe that CPW committed so much time and money to the process that they were reluctant to shift gears with a new vendor...time and time again. You can go back and listen to commission discussions about Aspira's failures, yet they pushed forward. Now we are stuck with this abomination.
Yes, Sir. I've traded some email with McDaniel on the topic (and I deal with clients all day every day that are handcuffed with similar execution software struggles).

A year ago, the commission indicated a lengthy issue/bug/feature list being worked, and I get that enterprise level tools can't change on a dime, but from what we see as consumers, nothing material changed and thats a glacial pace of bug fixing.

There seem to be some structural things wrong - and by doing what they did - spreading 'results' out in multiple steps AND allowing incomplete information to be released directly to the customer (the 'backdoor'), they are only making it worse. Better to have folks bitch about an extra week than partially opening the kimono and STILL making a lot of them wait an extra week.
 
Back
Top