New Mexico public draw

[CMF]

To allocate more tags to residents and non-residents alike, we ,re suggesting that 90% of the tags go to residents and 10% of the tags be allocated to non-residents.

You can't allocate more tags to both groups without actually increasing the number of tags. You are just moving people from one pool to the other. Since 90% of the guided pool is nonresidents, you'd have to do a 85/15 split to keep the status quo allocation to nonresidents and residents. Just like WRO mentioned...

It would depend on the specific unit (if those rules remain the same) but broadly speaking the DIY NR tag pool would increase by about 4%. I can get behind that.

That sounds good on the surface, but it doesn't math out. You would actually see a decline in odds..
At least, with some basic assumptions that:
If the guide pool goes away, those people still apply in either the r or nr pool
The data stays similar to that of previous years.

If the guided/outfitter pool is eliminated and replaced with a straight 90/10 split (90% of all tags to a resident-only pool and 10% to a nonresident-only pool), nonresident odds would worsen significantly.

Here’s the exact impact, based on the actual 2026 draw numbers and the assumption that everyone who applied in the guided pool simply reapplies in their correct residency category (guided nonresidents move to the new nonresident pool; guided residents move to the new resident pool):

• Current situation (2026 actual results)Total tags issued: 60,719Nonresidents actually drew: 9,059 tags (≈14.92% of total)→ This came from the 6% DIY nonresident pool (≈3,643 tags) + the portion of the 10% guided pool that went to nonresidents (≈5,416 tags).
• New 90/10 structureResident pool: 90% = 54,647 tagsNonresident pool: 10% = 6,072 tags
• Key point: The total number of nonresident applicants does not change under your assumption. All previous nonresident applicants (DIY + guided) would now compete together in the single 10% nonresident pool.

Result for nonresidents:They would receive only 6,072 tags instead of 9,059 while facing the same number of applicants.

Their overall success rate (odds) would therefore drop to ≈67% of current odds (a reduction of about 33%). Exact calculation:6,072 ÷ 9,059 ≈ 0.670 (or 67.0%).

This is an overall average across the entire big-game draw.

• On popular species like elk and deer, where the guided pool is used almost exclusively by nonresidents, the drop would be very close to this 33% reduction.
• On species like bighorn sheep (where more residents use the guided pool), the impact on nonresidents would be slightly less severe, but still a net loss of tags.

In short: Nonresidents would be competing for roughly one-third fewer tags in a single larger pool, making every hunt code noticeably harder to draw. Residents, by contrast, would see their pool grow from ~85% to 90% of tags, improving their overall odds.

 

[Gila]

You can't allocate more tags to both groups without actually increasing the number of tags. You are just moving people from one pool to the other. Since 90% of the guided pool is nonresidents, you'd have to do a 85/15 split to keep the status quo allocation to nonresidents and residents. Just like WRO mentioned...

10 percent are allocated to the outfitter pool. It is probably going away. The state doesn’t have to allocate any tags to non-residents. But they certainly will change the weight. 90% residents and 10% non-residents is suggested by many. South Dakota doesn’t give out any elk tags to non-residents. Most of the elk hunting there is on the National Forests. States can do whatever their state legislature wants them to do. You could fill up blackboards on 4 walls with your math and it won’t change the residents vote. We know how many times we see red which is more often than not.