The class argument doesn't stand - many landowners are not wealthy by definition, never mind being in possession of "imense riches".
Victimless crime is another one I can't easily get a handle on, and I'm concerned at how acceptable some people think this is.
Let's all separate what we wish the world was like (fantasy/fiction) from what the world is actually like (fact).
You either operate within or without the boundaries of the law. It's not open to negotiation or democratic vote, and it really is that simple.
I don't want speeding tickets to give me points on my license or increased insurance premiums. I can easily avoid that outcome by choosing the option to adhere to the speed limits. Simple stuff really.
One of the greatest challenges faced by anyone wanting to go off the grid is finding a location where they won't get strung up for poaching or property damage at the very least.
What happens if permission is requested and subsequently denied ?
Unless you exit stage right double time you have already alerted the landowner to your presence, so he/she/their staff will be on the lookout for you should you decide to stay on anyway. They will also be phoning the local police and their neighbours to warn them of your presence.
It's the same natural reaction I would have if person(s) unknown was in my back garden.
Breaking the law is breaking the law. You can't justify or defend it by taking the "it's only breaking the law a little bit", or "it's not as bad as..." stance.
I can think of any number of scenarios where a keeper or estate worker could potentially be in very hot water for not detecting and/or alerting people to your presence on the estate. Intent for your activities to be victimless does not guarantee that they will be.
I own some land in the UK and in Canada I consider myself privileged in doing so. I worked bloody hard to be able to afford it and I would take exception to anyone making use of it or its resources without my express permission. Some of the land that has been handed down through generations is, in fact, among the best maintained countryside we have, and none of us has the remotest 'right' to go and make use of it as we see fit.
I guess this boils down, quite simply, to where you draw your line in the sand. I don't always agree with our laws but we'd be stuffed without them, so I adhere to them.
"It's just a few rabbits/pigeons/etc" holds no water at all, and neither does the assumption that you can do what you like on someone else's property.
At the risk of repeating myself, the biggest challenge in going off the grid is not finding food, shelter, water et al. The biggest challenge is finding somewhere where you can do it legally.
That is a very educated and understadable view, but I can't see our laws putting people off as alot of them are 'rediculous' (the new exceptions made for drug dealers for one). The 'passed down' ownership is very real though, not that it's a problem itself as like you mentioned it's well maintained but it does bring up the 'who rightfully owns land?' scenario. At the same time you should think of the 'degree' of the crime in legal terms, aslong as someone (who ever it may be) isn't defacing or comprimising the lands welfare then why shouldn't they walk freely amongst the country? After all..noone actually owns land do they? (squatters rights left a 60 year old guy with thousands of acres equating to £millions when he had been found to been living there for 40 odd years.)
From an average mans point of view it seems like all of Britian is owned and nothing is left for those who aren't rich or 'born into it'. I don't expect free land but I see people getting it for free, be it 'royals' or 'free loaders'..