AIBU to be fed up with walkers trespassing on our land?

There's a perfectly good existing law against trespass. Its up to the OP how far she wants to go in enforcing it. Its a civil matter unless its aggravated trespass. So she could apply for an injunction to stop persistent offenders trespassing if she wanted to. Be up to her. Seems a shame to have to obviously but if its her livelihood it may be worth it.

It doesnt look like the OP has a problem with having footpaths so I don't know why you think she wants "the public footpath system to be closed down". She just wants people to stick to the footpaths. She's doing everything reasonable to show people the route.

The countryside code covers the basics and that should be the starting point. I think the OP just wants people to follow this and then there would not be a problem. Crossing farmland is just one aspect of this. Look at the problems caused by people causing fires in moorlands or woodlands, river and canal wildlife being being damaged by litter, the resources spent rescuing people who set out unprepared for the terrain or weather conditions. If groups are lobbying for more access, they should take on the responsibility of raising awareness, not the people who have to pick up the litter and dog shit, deal with dead or injured animals, etc. Often these work is done by volunteers from rural communities.

*I obviously see things differently to you. If I
see rolling hills and countryside, I don’t automatically think I should have the right to walk across it. *

You have probably lost a lot of sympathy saying this. The vast majority of people walking in the countryside do little/no damage.

Put up signs saying things like:

• PRIVATE LAND

or

PRIVATE SHOOTING RANGE DO NOT APPROACH
DANGER TO LIFE

big yellow ⚠️

PRIVATE LAND
3 OFF LEAD DOGS SHOT IN 2025.
PLEASE KEEP OFF

Our Scout group got lost last summer (unaccompained expedition) and the Farmer whole land they ended up on was very happy to get the realigned with their map and get the back on route. Probably because they were polite and asked for help instead if trying to ckaim they the right to wander across the field being harvested.

There is plenty of land not being used for crops or vulnerable animals... why are some people so insistent tbey should have the right to go everywhere? Food before leisure.

I'm still waiting for practical suggestions from the OP. Does she think that there should be an emergency phone line to local police ready to race to OP's farm to arrest walkers who stray into a cropped field or allow their dog to defecate? Does she think that the public footpath system should be closed down? Or does she have other suggestions? What does she actually want to happen?

I doubt that farmers would like to see the ramblers teaching schoolchildren about the importance of farming and how to respect farmland.

The right to roam seems a bit of a red herring in the context of this thread. If people are unable to follow simple signage and the countryside code then they will struggle if given unfettered access to rural areas. Of course, if people run into difficulties they then depend on volunteers from the local area to rescue them. Some of the comments show a lack of knowledge about rural life, rural poverty and the pressures facing farmers. If more education is needed then perhaps the groups lobbying for access could shoulder the responsibility for this.

Vast swathes of countryside being in the private ownership of a small number of extremely rich families for centuries is what leads to revolution, or in this case to the Right to Roam. In Scotland there are still very strong feelings about the clearances.
It isn't right, or sustainable, for the huge majority of the population to be forced to live in tiny spaces in the cities, with no right to access the countryside, because a few mega rich people have bought the countryside up.
How would you feel in England if there were no public footpaths? No national parks? Nowhere to go to see grass and trees, other than your local town park? Nowhere to exercise other than your local gym? Well, those public footpaths and national parks didn't come about by accident. The government created them. Access to the countryside is a public good, and sometimes a public good takes precedence over the right of a billionaire to boot people off his land because it's his.

1. If enough people are unhappy about lack of access to the countryside then England may end up seeing the right to roam introduced. It's being campaigned for. People in Scotland can now wander across vast areas of land that they had no right to access 25 years ago. Not just on foot - the right to roam also includes bikes, horse-riding and wild camping. See this campaigning group, for instance: ABOUT | RIGHT TO ROAM
2. We know that it's unhealthy for children, individuals and for society as a whole for people not to go out into and enjoy the countryside. Good, easy, pleasurable access to the countryside is important. Are there sufficient footpaths for instance? Close enough to towns, which in some cases will be newly-built towns? This stuff matters.
3. The current law in England is on OP's side. But she's still not happy. How much does that law really help her? Has she tried to enforce her rights? Would enforcing her rights be practicable and effective? If not, what practical suggestions does she have for improving her situation or, more broadly, for revising the current system?
4. We know that OP works very hard for a living and I'm sure she doesn't have much spare time. But maybe one idea would be for a group of landowners to offer to go into local schools to run sessions on the importance of farming, how to access and learn from the countryside while treating it with respect, etc? I'm sure that OP can come up with other ideas.

I like your comment about catching bees with honey. I'd add that humans are pack animals who like to belong to 'us' but can be hostile to 'them'. So I'd suggest notices should be about 'us all' rather than sounding like a landowner (them) telling us what to do (even if you are entitled to do this on your land). Perhaps a welcome, a diagram of where the path goes, pictures of wildlife & farm animals to look out for and notes of how we can all protect them - stay on path, dogs on lead. (Many humans are very simple creatures who like pictures rather than words). Maybe another notice saying 'sorry we can't let you in here to keep you and us safe' due to dangerous horse / bull or risk of dog crap on farm workers' hands getting into food we all eat and a phone number to report any open gates / broken stiles / dogs off lead. Maybe a post on a local FB page asking for ideas for how to solve the problem?

This won't deter hardened arsehikes but if my local farmer did this (instead of barbed wire across a PROW) I'd be round there offering to build them a fence!

The law should protect the landowner. The right to roam is all very well but it’s naive to suggest that everyone does it responsibly and the landowner is the one who loses out when it goes wrong. If there’s no footpath and right of public access then no-one has the ‘right to roam’ on private property. If there is a footpath and it crosses the landowners private residence then they have a right to put up signs directing walkers to the proper path to avoid damage to their property. Why should the fact that they own land preclude them from the laws that cover the rest of us.

Its not your land though? Or anyone else's other than the person who owns the land. So Im not sure why you are suggesting you have some sort of moral right to someone else's property. If there isnt a public footpath/access, people don't have a right to walk on it. The owner doesn't want legal rights over her land established by continuous use either presumably.

No, it isn't, and whether in England or Scotland people should not walk over and damage crops. But would you have an issue with ramblers walking over fields in the winter, when there are no crops? Or walking across a sheep field in a responsible manner? I think the constant suggestion that we consider how we'd feel if people "roamed" across our gardens, or the bottom of our gardens, is very telling. What you are thinking of when you say the word "garden" is very different from what the reality is for most people in the UK. If you look at the dictionary definition, it isn't really possible to "roam" across the average British garden, is it? Here's a photo, to help you to recognise what such a garden looks like. And of course lots of people have no garden at all. I'd hope that we can encourage people so deprived of access to nature to get out into the countryside. While acting responsibly. I'd like to ask you how you think society should deal with the problem you're complaining about. What in practical terms do you think the law should do?

You are not dealing with ordinary dog walkers, you are dealing with a criminal arsonist. Setting fire to a pile of logs is not something ordinary people do and it would have required more than a box of matches - have you ever tried setting fire to a log? The pile of logs would need to be at the very least doused in petrol. There is clearly a psycho neighbour committing criminal acts. Arson is an extremely serious offence that can have huge consequences for the land, animals and human life. I hope that this has been reported to the police and that you take their advice as to how to proceed, not by trying to get people on Mumsnet advising about what originally seemed to be about ordinary dog walkers. Dog walkers are not arsonists.

Not really. It doesn’t change a thing about what the OP has been saying, and it’s all things that happen wherever people think that they don’t have to consider others.

I don't think so. It gives more context to OP's concerns, but fire or no fire it doesn't change what OP wants - to stop people trespassing on her land.

The farm isn’t huge, but it’s a working farm and livelihoods depend on it.

I actually think if you put some version of this on your signage, it would be very effective.

I suspect you're right about people being arsey due to embarrassment, but I think the vast majority of people would be very sympathetic to not ruining crops and tromping across land and frightening livestock that provide for people.

I'm adding that I don't think being threatening or aggressive tends to get the best out of people. The sign someone posted above with work hard and buy your own land would put my back right up (and I'm someone who both respects other people's land and can afford my own).

Well that was one drip feed and a half.