The biggest problem in the decision is, in my humble opion, associating the word "riparian" with the Great Lakes. Riparians are those who own property along inland lakes and streams, who own (but not totally control) the bottomlands. This is not true with the Great Lakes bottomlands which have no riparians. Better call them "adjcent property owners" since the bottomlands, up to the Ordinary High Water Mark,are not owned by those living next to them. They belong to all citizens of the State. You, me, our children, our grandchildren, etc. etc.
When waters are high, adjacent property owners have every right to prohibit walking in front of their property since it is their property. But when water is normal or low, they should not be alowed to prohibit walking on publicly owned property, only their own, above the OHWM. It is most disturbing that the Court of Appeals is willing to give away control of our property rights. What's next, adjacent property owners have control over a pie shaped wedge to the center of the Great Lakes?
Tip of the Mitt was correct by informing those who walk the beaches what they may be facing this season and the need to juggle private and public property rights . But hopefully, the Court of Appeals decision will be appealed to reaffirm the ownership of our bottomlands.