New Mexico Rounding

[MTGomer]

To play devils advocate;
If the rule or statute or whatever it is says that residents get 84% of tags and they’re not going to issue 84% of tags to residents, what good is the rule?

If they can issue less than 84% why give residents any? Just give the tags to the rightful owners of your wildlife, the outfitters. If you want to hunt, even on your own land, you can buy the right to do so from an outfitter.

 

[MTGomer]

Hopefully this is a step toward a bigger goal, like eliminating outfitter set asides and going with an 85/15 or 90/10 N/NR split, leaving it entirely up to the tag holder if they want an outfitter or not.

 

[BuzzH]

To play devils advocate;
If the rule or statute or whatever it is says that residents get 84% of tags and they’re not going to issue 84% of tags to residents, what good is the rule?

If they can issue less than 84% why give residents any? Just give the tags to the rightful owners of your wildlife, the outfitters. If you want to hunt, even on your own land, you can buy the right to do so from an outfitter.

Agreed. New Mexico has made this mess by allowing outfitters and guides, as well as landowners, to control wayyyy too much of the tag allocation.

I don't blame the residents one bit for demanding that they receive their entire allocation. Residents and the associated percentages come first, period.

Either amend the statute or live up to it, there aren't 2 choices.

 

[ImBillT]

To play devils advocate;
If the rule or statute or whatever it is says that residents get 84% of tags and they’re not going to issue 84% of tags to residents, what good is the rule?

If they can issue less than 84% why give residents any? Just give the tags to the rightful owners of your wildlife, the outfitters. If you want to hunt, even on your own land, you can buy the right to do so from an outfitter.

They did issue 84% of listed tags to residents. It’s rounding up by a single tag, for SOME hunt codes that resulted in an extra tag being issued, which resulted in less than 84% of actual tags going to residents, but again, it was an extra tag. Residents lost zero opportunity under the old system and gain zero opportunity under the new system. I would be happier with the new system if residents got the additional tag. As it stands, NMGF is out a minimum of $280k, the math got really screwey, not one additional tag will go to residents and no one will notice an improvement in hunt quality.

Residents tag rounding is what caused the problem in the first place. If Rs, NRs, and Os all followed normal mathematic rounding rules instead of rounding R’s up no matter what, then NM residents would get their 84% of total tags(not per hunt code) without needing to issue extra tags to NRs or Os. Instead, in order to make sure that 84% went to residents on individual hunt codes instead of total tags, even though many tag numbers wouldn’t allow it(84% of 10 is 8.4) they rounded up resident tags even below .5. The result of that was that they had to issue an extra tag to get NRs and Os up to 6% and 8% of published tags. Then residents got mad again, because although they then had 84%+ of published tags, they had slightly under 84% of actual tags on hunt codes that issued an additional, unpublished tag. I see the problem, if 11 tags can be issued, then residents missed out on opportunity...sort of. But the new system doesn’t give them that tag. It does away with extra tag, which cost NMGF money, and significant percentage of NR opportunity. Also, the math is totally convoluted now.

There are two better options. A) Adjust the tag numbers to avoid the need to issue an extra. B) Stop evaluating resident allocation on a per hunt code basis and go to 84% of the total. It’s not possible allocate exactly 84%, 6% and 10% of 10 tags with whole numbers.

Residents get at least 84% of every hunt code, but there are plenty of hunt codes where NRs and Os get 0%, and neither NRs or Os get their full 6% and 10%. That would be fixed in either of the above solutions, whether you adjust tags to avoid the extra tag being necessary, or just evaluate total tags.

 

[ImBillT]

Agreed. New Mexico has made this mess by allowing outfitters and guides, as well as landowners, to control wayyyy too much of the tag allocation.

I don't blame the residents one bit for demanding that they receive their entire allocation. Residents and the associated percentages come first, period.

Either amend the statute or live up to it, there aren't 2 choices.

I don’t know that guides or land owners are the problem on this particular issue, but I certainly wouldn’t mind seeing the NR and O pools becoming closer to even, or doing away with the O pool altogether.

I also don’t blame residents for being upset if they feel like they aren’t getting what they are supposed to get. I just don’t like that the “solution” gave them absolutely nothing, but cost NRs a lot of opportunity. I don’t think that was the goal of the people pushing for the change. I’m not saying I can’t wait for the NR allocation to be cut to 5%, but at least the residents would get something out of it.

 

[ImBillT]

Hopefully this is a step toward a bigger goal, like eliminating outfitter set asides and going with an 85/15 or 90/10 N/NR split, leaving it entirely up to the tag holder if they want an outfitter or not.

That would be nice. In order for outfitters to have the same number of clients per year that they do now, MR tags will have to remain well above 10%.

 

[AggieHunter]

As I think someone else mentioned many states are also wondering why there are fewer hunters afield and this will have an impact, but I believe it is designed too. The other issue the large loss of money New Mexico has to deal with which hopefully won't cause them to jack up non-resident license costs as other states have recently.

 

[ImBillT]

As I think someone else mentioned many states are also wondering why there are fewer hunters afield and this will have an impact, but I believe it is designed too. The other issue the large loss of money New Mexico has to deal with which hopefully won't cause them to jack up non-resident license costs as other states have recently.

If NRs don’t email in, I think the drop will be blamed on Corona and ignored for at least a year.

 

[BuzzH]

As long as statute exists, Residents need to get 84% of the tags, that's the fact that needs to be dealt with and adhered to.

The rest is noise regarding NR allocation, outfitter allocation, etc.

 

[Labman]

They did issue 84% of listed tags to residents. It’s rounding up by a single tag, for SOME hunt codes that resulted in an extra tag being issued, which resulted in less than 84% of actual tags going to residents, but again, it was an extra tag. Residents lost zero opportunity under the old system and gain zero opportunity under the new system. I would be happier with the new system if residents got the additional tag. As it stands, NMGF is out a minimum of $280k, the math got really screwey, not one additional tag will go to residents and no one will notice an improvement in hunt quality.

Residents tag rounding is what caused the problem in the first place. If Rs, NRs, and Os all followed normal mathematic rounding rules instead of rounding R’s up no matter what, then NM residents would get their 84% of total tags(not per hunt code) without needing to issue extra tags to NRs or Os. Instead, in order to make sure that 84% went to residents on individual hunt codes instead of total tags, even though many tag numbers wouldn’t allow it(84% of 10 is 8.4) they rounded up resident tags even below .5. The result of that was that they had to issue an extra tag to get NRs and Os up to 6% and 8% of published tags. Then residents got mad again, because although they then had 84%+ of published tags, they had slightly under 84% of actual tags on hunt codes that issued an additional, unpublished tag. I see the problem, if 11 tags can be issued, then residents missed out on opportunity...sort of. But the new system doesn’t give them that tag. It does away with extra tag, which cost NMGF money, and significant percentage of NR opportunity. Also, the math is totally convoluted now.

There are two better options. A) Adjust the tag numbers to avoid the need to issue an extra. B) Stop evaluating resident allocation on a per hunt code basis and go to 84% of the total. It’s not possible allocate exactly 84%, 6% and 10% of 10 tags with whole numbers.

Residents get at least 84% of every hunt code, but there are plenty of hunt codes where NRs and Os get 0%, and neither NRs or Os get their full 6% and 10%. That would be fixed in either of the above solutions, whether you adjust tags to avoid the extra tag being necessary, or just evaluate total tags.

Funny how sheep tags get lumped together as one hunt code per species, yet the quotas for every other species are based on individual unit/weapon/season numbers.

 

[ImBillT]

As long as statute exists, Residents need to get 84% of the tags, that's the fact that needs to be dealt with and adhered to.

The rest is noise regarding NR allocation, outfitter allocation, etc.

I don’t disagree. The question at hand is 84% of which tags? The total, or for every hunt code? If it’s per hunt code, how do you do 84% of 2 or 5? The next “which tags” question is published tags, or issued tags. Again, because you can’t do 84% of 2 or 5, the additional tag on a few hunt codes seemed to offer an excellent solution, but created the problem of residents not getting 84% of the issued tags.

I do think they’ll change something in the future. The current rounding is a little convoluted. It would be cool if they just published the number of NR and O tags next to each hunt code. It would fix the confusion, and be hard to argue with.

 

[BuzzH]

I don’t disagree. The question at hand is 84% of which tags? The total, or for every hunt code? If it’s per hunt code, how do you do 84% of 2 or 5? The next “which tags” question is published tags, or issued tags. Again, because you can’t do 84% of 2 or 5, the additional tag on a few hunt codes seemed to offer an excellent solution, but created the problem of residents not getting 84% of the issued tags.

I do think they’ll change something in the future. The current rounding is a little convoluted. It would be cool if they just published the number of NR and O tags next to each hunt code. It would fix the confusion, and be hard to argue with.

Look up the law:

New Mexico state law has established the following quotas for draw hunts for all big-game and turkey licenses and permits:

• A minimum of 84% of draw licenses are awarded to New Mexico residents.
• Up to 10% of draw licenses are awarded to residents and nonresidents applying with a New Mexico registered outfitter. See page 33.
• Up to 6% of draw licenses are awarded to nonresidents applying without a New Mexico registered outfitter.
• 100% of draw licenses for antlerless elk and hunts held exclusively on Wildlife Management Areas are awarded to New Mexico residents.
• 
  
• Population management hunts are not subject to quota.

Seems pretty clear cut to me...minimum of 84% go to New Mexico Residents, no maximum number.

I would assume that applies to all hunts by code, 84% is a minimum.

 

[ImBillT]

Look up the law:

New Mexico state law has established the following quotas for draw hunts for all big-game and turkey licenses and permits:

• A minimum of 84% of draw licenses are awarded to New Mexico residents.
• Up to 10% of draw licenses are awarded to residents and nonresidents applying with a New Mexico registered outfitter. See page 33.
• Up to 6% of draw licenses are awarded to nonresidents applying without a New Mexico registered outfitter.
• 100% of draw licenses for antlerless elk and hunts held exclusively on Wildlife Management Areas are awarded to New Mexico residents.
• 
  
• Population management hunts are not subject to quota.

Seems pretty clear cut to me...minimum of 84% go to New Mexico Residents, no maximum number.

I would assume that applies to all hunts by code, 84% is a minimum.

Sure you assume it applies to each code, but it doesn’t say it. They can easily clear it up some time by rewording the statute.

 

[npaden]

Look up the law:

New Mexico state law has established the following quotas for draw hunts for all big-game and turkey licenses and permits:

• A minimum of 84% of draw licenses are awarded to New Mexico residents.
• Up to 10% of draw licenses are awarded to residents and nonresidents applying with a New Mexico registered outfitter. See page 33.
• Up to 6% of draw licenses are awarded to nonresidents applying without a New Mexico registered outfitter.
• 100% of draw licenses for antlerless elk and hunts held exclusively on Wildlife Management Areas are awarded to New Mexico residents.
• 
  
• Population management hunts are not subject to quota.

Seems pretty clear cut to me...minimum of 84% go to New Mexico Residents, no maximum number.

I would assume that applies to all hunts by code, 84% is a minimum.

The statute does not say the "Up to" part of that. And the statute actually included language on the way the number of licenses would be rounded up. The way it says for them to do the rounding in the statute basically contradicts the minimum 84%. They can't do both. Not so clear cut. Essentially they have to choose which part of the statute they are going to violate.

B. Beginning with the licenses issued from a special drawing for a hunt code that commences on or after April 1, 2012: (1) licenses shall be issued as follows:
(a) ten percent of the licenses to be drawn by nonresidents and residents who will be contracted with a New Mexico outfitter prior to application; and
(b) six percent of the licenses to be drawn by nonresidents who are not required to be contracted with an outfitter; and
(2) a minimum of eighty-four percent of the licenses shall be issued to residents of New Mexico.
C. If the number of applicants who apply for licenses pursuant to the provisions of Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Subsection B of this section does not constitute the allocated licenses for either category, then the additional licenses available may be granted to another category of applicants. The director shall offer first choice of undersubscribed hunts to residents, whenever practicable.
D. If the determination of the percentages in Subsection B of this section yields a fraction of: (1) five-tenths or greater, the number of licenses to be issued shall be rounded up to the next whole number; and (2) less than five-tenths, the number of licenses shall be rounded down to the next whole number.

A link to the actual statute - not what someone summarized on a website: https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/11 Regular/final/SB0196.pdf

 

[BuzzH]

Sure you assume it applies to each code, but it doesn’t say it. They can easily clear it up some time by rewording the statute.

Apparently the LSO must think so as well...

Seeing all the bitching about a unit needing 13 tags before a NR gets a tag, that would be a fair assumption to make.

 

[BuzzH]

The statute does not say the "Up to" part of that. And the statute actually included language on the way the number of licenses would be rounded up. The way it says for them to do the rounding in the statute basically contradicts the minimum 84%. They can't do both. Not so clear cut. Essentially they have to choose which part of the statute they are going to violate.



A link to the actual statute - not what someone summarized on a website: https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/11 Regular/final/SB0196.pdf

The regulation says "up to" directly from the NMGF website.

 

[npaden]

The regulation says "up to" directly from the NMGF website.

My quote is from the actual statute. See the link. Pages 16 and 17.

 

[ImBillT]

My quote is from the actual statute. See the link. Pages 16 and 17.

Seems reliable.

I sent them my money at about 5:59:50 either way. I half expected to see that it didn’t go through in time.

 

[BuzzH]

My quote is from the actual statute. See the link. Pages 16 and 17.

I know, I saw the statute as well.

Regulation can tighten/clarify statute, probably exactly why regulation says "up to".

There was a minimum amount of tags that had to go to residents in statute, no minimum percentage was defined in statute for NR's.

So, they did the easy thing by adding "up to" in regulation...simple fix.

 

[ImBillT]

I know, I saw the statute as well.

Regulation can tighten/clarify statute, probably exactly why regulation says "up to".

There was a minimum amount of tags that had to go to residents in statute, no minimum percentage was defined in statute for NR's.

So, they did the easy thing by adding "up to" in regulation...simple fix.

So you saw the statute that did not contain the words “up to”, then you told me to “look up the law” and instead of posting the actual law, you posted someone’s summary that added those words, and then acted like that was the law...

Okay.