Muleycrazy,
The way the allocate tags is one of the reasons nonresidents don't approach the 10% max for sure. Doing the math, here are the worst case scenario for lowest nonresidents tag quotas if a region has the following number of permits:
9 permits, 0 nonresident quota, 0%
19 permits, 1 NR , 5.3%
29 permits , 2 NR, 6.9%
39 permits, 3 NR, 7.6%
49 permits, 4 NR, 8.2 %
59 permits, 5 NR, 8.5 %
You get the idea.
Since there are 6 regions, this round-down happens 6 times which keeps the "up to" nonresident quota well below 10%. In 2012 there were 230 sheep permits and the nonresident "up to" quota was 19 (8.3%) and the actual nonresident draw was 12 (5.2%) for all sheep permits. For rams/either sex there were 146 permits, the nonresident max quota was 11 (7.5%) and the nonresident actual draw was 9 (6.2%).
It's like an evil math genius designed the system. It is nearly perfect in awarding the minimum number of permits to nonresidents when a quota of up to 10% exists. It is beautiful in its deviousness. The goal is to keep nonresidents to a minimum and they did a fabulous job. About the only way they could knock it down more would be to add a cap of no more than 10% NR per hunt code. That should get the nonresident actual draw rate down to 2 ram/either sex permits statewide. Under 2%.