New Mexico Rounding

[ImBillT]

Upon skimming pages 16 and 17 of the statute, it does appear as though the assessment of license allocation is on a hunt code basis, not a total tags issued for a species. It would be helpful for NMGF to make this obvious in their publications.

Unless I missed something, any fraction less than .5 is supposed to round down, and any fraction .5 or greater is supposed to round INLCUDING FOR RESIDENTS. I may have missed the always round up for resident portion, but if I didn’t, it is the always rounding up for residents that is causing the issues in the first place.

I don’t think I missed it. It looks like resident tags are not supposed to be rounded up unless their fraction is .5 or greater.

Edit: NPaden already pointed that out.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

Try to comprehend the way statute and regulation function...if you can. Statute doesn't have to say "up to", that can be clarified in regulation to meet the demands of statute. It happens all the time, and I've successfully recommended such changes in regulation in WY exactly that way.

What I posted was directly from the NMGF website, not "someone's random summary".

Here's the real bottom line, NMGF is following both statute and regulation, including the change that you're whining about. That's how all GF agencies function, they have to follow statute, but can also impose regulation to clarify/augment/etc. statute, so long as regulation doesn't conflict with or weaken statute. In this case, by adding "up to" in regulation language that means Residents will receive their statutorily obligated 84% of licenses. When NM tries to round NR licenses and increases the total to the point it decreases residents to an allocation under 84%, they're in violation of statute and are looking for a lawsuit. A lawsuit they will lose, since they are then in violation of law.

They have a couple options:

1. Change the allocations via amending the statute
2. Clarify in regulation by adding language like NR's get "up to" 6%

They chose to further limit NR's so that R's were assured their 84% allocation and also to follow statute.

I would have done the same thing as its obvious the legislative intent of the law is to ensure resident tag allocations...no question. Its wayyyy easier to add clarification in regulation than amend statute.

 

[ImBillT]

Try to comprehend the way statute and regulation function...if you can. Statute doesn't have to say "up to", that can be clarified in regulation to meet the demands of statute. It happens all the time, and I've successfully recommended such changes in regulation in WY exactly that way.

What I posted was directly from the NMGF website, not "someone's random summary".

Here's the real bottom line, NMGF is following both statute and regulation, including the change that you're whining about. That's how all GF agencies function, they have to follow statute, but can also impose regulation to clarify/augment/etc. statute, so long as regulation doesn't conflict with or weaken statute. In this case, by adding "up to" in regulation language that means Residents will receive their statutorily obligated 84% of licenses. When NM tries to round NR licenses and increases the total to the point it decreases residents to an allocation under 84%, they're in violation of statute and are looking for a lawsuit. A lawsuit they will lose, since they are then in violation of law.

They have a couple options:

1. Change the allocations via amending the statute
2. Clarify in regulation by adding language like NR's get "up to" 6%

They chose to further limit NR's so that R's were assured their 84% allocation and also to follow statute.

I would have done the same thing as its obvious the legislative intent of the law is to ensure resident tag allocations...no question. Its wayyyy easier to add clarification in regulation than amend statute.

You told me to read the law, but didn’t post the law. You placed quotes around “someone’s random summary” yet I did not use the word “random”. You frequently misrepresent things that I say, to frame them in a way to make yourself look good, and make me look bad. You do it in every thread that both of post in. Feel free, at the very least, to quote me accurately, when you quote me.

NMGF could have gone to slightly more effort and prevented residents from being under 84% of tags without cutting $280k worth of NR tags.

Furthermore, the way they currently round up resident tags does in fact violate the statute.

 

[npaden]

I'm not trying to pull a scab off old wounds here. My original post was that I was surprised at how many actual hunt codes were affected by the change. When the law was originally passed they immediately pooled the sheep tags into a single code per species otherwise there would have been zero tags available to nonresidents. I would think they could have easily pooled all the pronghorn youth hunt codes and got the actual percentage of tags going to nonresident youth closer to the 6% in the statute than the less than 2% that are being given out the way it is currently being handled.

As far as things being "pretty clear cut" it isn't pretty clear cut to me. There is an entire section of the statute that defines how the numbers are supposed to be rounded up or down that is currently being completely disregarded because one word in a different section.

 

[dirtytough]

If you go off of what the g and f regs say, it takes 17 tags per hunt code for a non res to receive a tag.
Up to 6% of 13 = 0.78. That’s not 1. So you have to round up to receive that tag. That is more than up to 6%. 6% of 17 =1.02. So a non res would receive a tag if 17 tags or more are issued per hunt code, per what the regs say about not rounding up.

So are we supposed to believe the regs or the statute?

I personally believe the statute and that with 13 tags minimum in a draw code a non res will draw the tag.

So who believes the regs are accurate on the “up to” portion?

 

[ImBillT]

I’m opinionated and perhaps not as careful with what I say as I should be.

BuzzH doesn’t seem to like me.

Those two things combine to derail a lot of threads.

 

[Labman]

“A lawsuit they will lose, since they are then in violation of law.”

Unless you are the judge on the case at trial you don’t really know how it will go. My HOA sued a homeowner for having a flagpole that was too high according to their interpretation of the covenants, multiple homeowners, who were also lawyers on the HOA board insisted on suing and convinced everyone they were right. I told them we would lose, and big. The HOA lost 80k and the guy got to keep his flagpole.

I think it could be argued that the R/NR/O allocations were in compliance with the statute regarding the published tag quotas and the Director issued an extra tag for some hunt codes, as the Director is allowed to do.

Who knows how it would turn out, just look at Robert Durst’s first trial.

Analysis Finds New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Shorts Resident Hunters on Licenses - New Mexico Wildlife Federation - New Mexico Wildlife Federation

By BEN NEARY NMWF Conservation Director The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish has been issuing extra licenses for bighorn sheep and other high-demand species to outfitted hunters and nonresidents while commonly failing to give the required percentage of licenses to resident hunters. Brandon...

nmwildlife.org

 

[ImBillT]

If you go off of what the g and f regs say, it takes 17 tags per hunt code for a non res to receive a tag.
Up to 6% of 13 = 0.78. That’s not 1. So you have to round up to receive that tag. That is more than up to 6%. 6% of 17 =1.02. So a non res would receive a tag if 17 tags or more are issued per hunt code, per what the regs say about not rounding up.

So are we supposed to believe the regs or the statute?

I personally believe the statute and that with 13 tags minimum in a draw code a non res will draw the tag.

So who believes the regs are accurate on the “up to” portion?

The only way to really know would be to see the code they use to conduct the draw. I called NMGF and described the method used for the draw as I understood it, and asked if that was correct. The lady on the phone said yes. I then said “do I need 13 tags, 15 tags, or 17 tags for an NR to have a chance at a tag?” She said “17”. I then did the math on 13 tags, and came up with 12 being issued to R’s and O’s, and asked where the 13th tag would go. She replied “probably a resident or an outfitter”. I asked why because the NR pool had the highest fractional portion. She said “you’re right. I guess it goes to the NR pool” I then asked about the chance at two tags going to the NR pool at 25, but not at 30. She said that seemed correct, but was surprised and said she would talk to someone about it, and that they appreciate the questions and feedback.

In the end, I don’t think it’s going to be easy to see exactly how it’s going to shake out until we look at how tags actually got allocated this year.

NMGF employees have always been very friendly, helpful, and accommodating. I do think she talked to someone else about it later. I do think they care about feedback, and I do think they care about NRs.

 

[npaden]

If you go off of what the g and f regs say, it takes 17 tags per hunt code for a non res to receive a tag.
Up to 6% of 13 = 0.78. That’s not 1. So you have to round up to receive that tag. That is more than up to 6%. 6% of 17 =1.02. So a non res would receive a tag if 17 tags or more are issued per hunt code, per what the regs say about not rounding up.

So are we supposed to believe the regs or the statute?

I personally believe the statute and that with 13 tags minimum in a draw code a non res will draw the tag.

So who believes the regs are accurate on the “up to” portion?

The game and fish regs are an "interpretation" of the statute. As discussed, there is really no way to comply with the statute as written since it contradicts itself so they are "interpreting" it.

For 7 years they interpreted it based on the rounding clause, but this year they got hammered by the NMWF and changed their interpretation based on the minimum.

Now the way they are calculating things is to make sure the minimum is 84% at all costs, regardless of what the statute says on the way things should be rounded. So the way they are interpreting it, they can give nonresidents more than 6% as long as residents get the 84% minimum. So they are actually violating the "Up to" part that they added to their regulations which makes it even more confusing. Pretty clear to me.

 

[noharleyyet]

Having a tough time understanding the cogency back and forth. It's a tough NR drawing environment, rounding notwithstanding.

 

[BuzzH]

The game and fish regs are an "interpretation" of the statute. As discussed, there is really no way to comply with the statute as written since it contradicts itself so they are "interpreting" it.

For 7 years they interpreted it based on the rounding clause, but this year they got hammered by the NMWF and changed their interpretation based on the minimum.

Now the way they are calculating things is to make sure the minimum is 84% at all costs, regardless of what the statute says on the way things should be rounded. So the way they are interpreting it, they can give nonresidents more than 6% as long as residents get the 84% minimum. So they are actually violating the "Up to" part that they added to their regulations which makes it even more confusing. Pretty clear to me.

A lot of this goes back to legislative intent, like it or not, just the way it is.

When you pass legislation on license allocations, the intent is not to worry about NR hunters, its to support and worry about RESIDENT hunters. As maddening as it may be, the commission, departments, etc. absolutely make decisions and pass regulations worrying about legislative intent.

I can assure you, nobody cared, or thought through how the rounding etc. would impact the tag allocations when they passed the law.

What happens, is that regulation is often needed to clarify it or at least live up to the legislative intent.

We went through this exact thing in Wyoming a few years back with allocation. There is both regulation and statute on license allocations here. Because of the way the NR elk draw was being allowed to happen early, it created the same situation that NM is now facing. Residents were not getting their allocation. So, the commission changed the draw date for NR's, to make sure the INTENT of both regulation and statute were being met.

No different than what NM is doing, and IMO, doing the right thing by their resident hunters and elected officials.

 

[npaden]

I would think they could have easily pooled all the pronghorn youth hunt codes and got the actual percentage of tags going to nonresident youth closer to the 6% in the statute than the less than 2% that are being given out the way it is currently being handled.

I misspoke here. I kind of did an off the cuff guess when I said less than 2% and it bothered me so I went back and did the math. If I added it correctly there are 225 any weapon youth tags available for buck pronghorns. Based on the current methodology being used (assuming you need 15 in a quota to give the NR license out) there will be 6 tags awarded to nonresident youth. That is 2.6667%. So I misspoke when I guessed "less than 2%.

It is still funny to me that the department is going to be violating their own regulations if they do award a tag on a hunt code with a quota of 15 like they are saying that are going to because that would be 6.667% of the tags which based on the math that I know is more than "Up to" 6%.

I am not sure I agree with you that nobody cared or thought about how it would affect tag allocations when they passed the statute since they put a section in the law that specified how the rounding should be handled. Seems like they cared about it and thought about it if they actually put it in the law.

 

[ImBillT]

If the intent was not to worry about NR licenses, they would have made the resident allocation 100% and the NR allocation would be leftovers only. They definitely cared about NR license allocation and MONEY when they passed the statute.

 

[BuzzH]

If the intent was not to worry about NR licenses, they would have made the resident allocation 100% and the NR allocation would be leftovers only. They definitely cared about NR license allocation and MONEY when they passed the statute.

The intent was to worry about residents getting 84% of tags, that simple.

 

[ImBillT]

The intent was to worry about residents getting 84% of tags, that simple.

fair enough

 

[gburk]

One of the commissioners responded and agreed with the argument I presented. So there is some hope for reconsideration next year.

The 84/6/10 split would require a lot to change but the rounding is something the commission can undo. I just emailed them and encourage others to do the same. Most of the hunts I applied for had a significant drop in NR tags, and as someone else noted previously, at some threshold of probability the raffle ticket is no longer worth the cost.

Meet the Commissioner - New Mexico Department of Game & Fish

Tirzio Lopez Vice-Chair District 3: San Juan, McKinley, Cibola, Valencia, Sandoval, Los Alamos and Rio Arriba counties; Attention: Tirzio Lopez 1 Wildlife Way, Santa Fe, NM 87507 [email protected] Tirzio Lopez currently works for the United States Government as a security professional...

www.wildlife.state.nm.us

I think there's a decent case to be made that the negative impact of a 25 or 30 tag hunt cutting NR tags from 2 to 1 (or 10 tag hunt going from 1 to 0) is much greater than whatever slight perceived reduction in hunter crowding that the 11th or 26th hunter would have caused. End result is likely to be fewer NR applications in the long run for a barely noticeable benefit to residents. It's not their fault the statute is ambiguous but the net outcome of this new interpretation is negative. That's my story, anyways.

 

[Thomas11]

Well because of this mess, I didn’t apply my son for elk there because the youth elk tags for NR were cut in half!

 

[ImBillT]

Well because of this mess, I didn’t apply my son for elk there because the youth elk tags for NR were cut in half!

I’m pretty sure you can apply a youth on adult hunt codes. Some of those youth hunts are in some great places with great dates, but you can put an adult hunt as a second or third choice to boost your adds a little.


But yeah...still painful. If enough people email it might get changed next year.

 

[Thomas11]

I’m pretty sure you can apply a youth on adult hunt codes. Some of those youth hunts are in some great places with great dates, but you can put an adult hunt as a second or third choice to boost your adds a little.


But yeah...still painful. If enough people email it might get changed next year.

Yea I was aware of that. Here is my whole issue w it, no one gains by this! Not residents,NR or anyone. It is just to prove a point and no one gains here but hey it is what it is

 

[ImBillT]

Yea I was aware of that. Here is my whole issue w it, no one gains by this! Not residents,NR or anyone. It is just to prove a point and no one gains here but hey it is what it is

I’m completely with you on that front! I have a big problem with it, and it almost kept me out of NM this year after drawing an elk tag in AZ.