I know it's not very mn not to stake one side or the other but I can see both sides of the acces argument.
People do need greater access to countryside, imo. One of the most depressing facts is the amount of common access land that is land locked by private land - meaning the public could walk on the common land, but only if they can get a lift in by helicopter. So the small % they do have access to, is greatly reduced because they would have to trespass over someone's else's land to get to it.
Public rights of way are brilliant and I've walked (or attempted to walk) many in my county and it's clear which farmers handle RoW across their land well, and which deliberately plant crops or do other things (eg park farm gear) to dissuade anyone using them. It used to be you could report it, but these days there isn't anyone who really cares anough to do anything about it - and so RoW are lost because then it can be argued they are never used.
Add to that the landowners are less and less farmers and more and more the likes of James Dyson who just buy chucks of land in a country he no longer lives in, having interferred with its politics and then buggered off. Or the Darwells who tried to stop an ancient right to wild camping in Dartmoor. It's feudal that massive landowners like this are able to lobby for less and less rights for the public.
However, many people are selfish idiots and they litter and cause problems with livestock etc and this is wrong. Dogs loose near sheep is a serious problem in my county and so I also empathise with farmers anger at seeing this happen time and time again or not wanting to keep having to pick up the mess than the public have left behind in their wake. And with horse owners when people insist on feeding them whatever crap they want to. It's plain wrong and it's expensive and heartbreaking. And anyone messing with a cow (let alone a bull) is almost too stupid for words.
It is a shame they ruin it for the responsible among us, because there is actually quite a nice unspoken agreement that could be struck otherwise. Responsible walkers do not cause damage and leave no trace they were there (apart from maybe the well trodden grass) and can help reduce crimes such as hare coarsing or fly tipping by being extra eyes on the more remote locations. Both of which are issues where I live.
Greater access also helps create affection and means there will be greater voices to help protect the countryside we have. If people are not allowed to engage with nature, they stop caring so much about it. People are shallow like that, but we care more about what we are familier with.
That said, some on here joking about threatening people with firearms also doesn't sit right with me. A gun is a tool and should only be used as such, imo - not a threat of violence towards other people. Even idiots. But maybe they are typing what they are sometimes tempted to do when especially frustrated, rather than something they actually do.