NR's have a small percentage of tag allocation, what are you even arguing for?You're completely missing the point and making a really weak argument. No one is talking about entitlements. Just simply saying that it's perfectly reasonable for a small tag allocation to non-residents as it’s actually in the best interest of the resident.
Absolutely nothing "entitles" a resident of a state to harvest an animal on federal land. Show me the statute. You have no more right to hunt on that particular land that anyone else - the state doesn't own it. Yellowstone National Park is within Montana and Wyoming - we don't get to hunt it. There's countless federal lands we can't hunt. They get to make the policy to access that land. Just like nothing entitles you access to hunt some private property.
What animal rights activists would like to see is forest service lands effectively become just like national parks. Nothing would make them happier to have only extremely limited hunting to be done by indigenous tribes. This short sided view that somehow as a resident you should get near exclusive access to hunt federal land is going to lead us in a path that has little support outside of your state.
In our current situation there's tons of non-resident hunters who feel vested in those lands. They love the idea that they could maybe someday go hunt elk on public land. The vast vast majority never will. A small portion will and those are the ones we complain about. Those that are going as demonstrated in tag revenue are clearly paging their fair share. If state FWP is mismanaging the pressure then advocate for a better management of it. But let's not pretend like 10-25% is too much.