Roger's Rock - alternative, non-water access?

Apologies if this has been brought up before...

I've heard of climbers rapping in from the top, but what about coming in from the north shore?

There's likely a property line but I don't see where that ends and State land begins. Thinking a whack from 9N to the point on the attached topo highlighted in gray, then a whack/traverse along the shore. I recall there being mostly brush and trees north of the main climbing area, so I'm guessing there's enough dirt and root for a foot trail.

Having recently been to Roger's Rock (both the slab via canoe and the campground) this summer I would not recommend a land approach. Even rapping in from the top seems like it would be a pretty big hassle. Water approach is definitely the way to go. Just my two cents. I believe you can rent/hire a boat pretty easily up there in the warmish months.

Daniel Affsprung wrote:Having recently been to Roger's Rock (both the slab via canoe and the campground) this summer I would not recommend a land approach. Even rapping in from the top seems like it would be a pretty big hassle. Water approach is definitely the way to go. Just my two cents. I believe you can rent/hire a boat pretty easily up there in the warmish months.

I've been there a handful of times. I would go more often if not for the water approach.

Agree about rapping, I'm hoping for an alternative way in.

On my old NG Topo maps at home there's some hiking trails in the northern area. No sure if those still exist. I've never heard of anyone using the road along the shore from the north either, which puts you pretty close geographically. I think terrain and private land are the unknowns.

If lack of canoe is the problem, I've done the approach with regular, gas-station purchased floats.

If the wind became too strong for the return journey to the campground, we planned on heading to your proposed entry point as our exit.

On my only visit to Rogers in the mid-'70s, we didn't know any better and approached on land along the shore from the campground. I recall a mix of walking, bushwacking, and scrambling but nothing too bad. We did the now standard route, descended the gully/ramp down the middle of the slab mostly by scrambling with some rappeling if I remember correctly, did a second route (Two Bits?), then walked down the trail from the top to the campground and drove on. So at least back then, this was a very reasonable way to go. Alan

Alan Rubin wrote:On my only visit to Rogers in the mid-'70s, we didn't know any better and approached on land along the shore from the campground. I recall a mix of walking, bushwacking, and scrambling but nothing too bad. We did the now standard route, descended the gully/ramp down the middle of the slab mostly by scrambling with some rappeling if I remember correctly, did a second route (Two Bits?), then walked down the trail from the top to the campground and drove on. So at least back then, this was a very reasonable way to go. Alan

There's a difficult section of rock that falls off into the water between the campground and main slabs, I wonder if you climbed the areas nearest to the campground but never made it over as far as what's considered the main slabs area (this is the area 'best approached by boat').

If you're looking for a return trip it's well worth it, highly developed now and some very fun moderate slab with a great view (just don't go when it's 80F+ and sunny).

No, we did Little Finger and another just to it's right---looking up. Kolokotronis had written up Little Finger in Climbing---claiming it to be 1200'!!!!and an FA, so Long and I had to go and check it out. I think Rosecran's guidebook may have just come out or maybe we just used the information in Climbing. I don't remeber the details of the approach scamble but we obviously figured out some way to get across the section that you mention--I don't remember doing anything too hard--and I'm a chicken on such terrain. Maybe we even belayed for a bit, but not that I I remember.As far as the route, it was nowhere near 1200'--probably not 1/2 that, and we felt that his 'route' was basically a short 5.8 variation on what appeared to be a well-established easier climb--but great fun in a brilliant location. Sure I'd love to get back there again---and via a boat. Hope you can come back out to visit us at Farley again this spring before the ADKs dry out.

certainly it can be done but a huge part of what makes rogers a unique experience is the water approach.

I will check some photos to verify, but I think I remember a mossy slab descending to the water off to climbers' right of the main face. That would shut down at least a low elevation approach from the north.

Nick Goldsmith wrote:certainly it can be done but a huge part of what makes rogers a unique experience is the water approach.

Assuming you have a boat/want to rent a boat. Otherwise it's just a hurtle to overcome to get to the climbs.

Alan, I think they put Little Finger, as climbed today, at about 500 feet. It's likely shorter than that. There might be pitches above the last belay/rap, but they look manky and low angle/uninteresting.

Farley's very much on my list of climbing areas worth visiting and there's a good chance Val will be recovered enough by the Spring to join me. I'm working through my issues in the off season as well, hoping to be fully mended by then.

Hi Kevin, That 1200' was always a mystery. Back in the '70s they used to have a section in Climbing called Basecamp (I think), that inclded lists and brief descriptions of new routes across the county, which is where we first saw Little Finger written up as a 5.8 FA, 1200'. Kolokotronis was a good climber but with a bit of a 'reputation', and the climb did sound very enticing, so Al Long and I headed over there at our first opportunity. We figured that if we'd stayed roped up on the trail all the way back to the campground, then maybe it would be 1200'. Possibly it was just a misprint in the magazine, but it did give us a laugh. Excellent climb though and a fine piece of rock.

Hope you are successful in in dealing with your issues and that we run into each other somewhere next season. Alan

Here's a good look at your northern approach

Kevin. you can't always have everything the easy way. that is part of the fun of climbing. the adventure. last summer when isa and I were there we saw a brother and sister team that put their climbing pack wrapped in a garbage bag in a kids floatie and them selfs in kids floaties and managed to have a grand adventure. Not recomended for the average person (they were both competitive swimmers) but shows you that people with possitive attitude can make do and have a grand time. PS. sorry the prospect of a canoe / kayak ride or hitching a ride on a power or sail boat seems like nothing more than an obstical to you......

Nick Goldsmith wrote:Kevin. you can't always have everything the easy way. that is part of the fun of climbing. the adventure. last summer when isa and I were there we saw a brother and sister team that put their climbing pack wrapped in a garbage bag in a kids floatie and them selfs in kids floaties and managed to have a grand adventure. Not recomended for the average person (they were both competitive swimmers) but shows you that people with possitive attitude can make do and have a grand time. PS. sorry the prospect of a canoe / kayak ride or hitching a ride on a power or sail boat seems like nothing more than an obstical to you......

You tell him how he should have fun and what the right adventure is! Never mind that he has apparently done it multiple times already, and bushwhacking in another way might be a different adventure - he is wrong!

Kevin Heckeler wrote:Apologies if this has been brought up before... I've heard of climbers rapping in from the top, but what about coming in from the north shore? There's likely a property line but I don't see where that ends and State land begins. Thinking a whack from 9N to the point on the attached topo highlighted in gray, then a whack/traverse along the shore. I recall there being mostly brush and trees north of the main climbing area, so I'm guessing there's enough dirt and root for a foot trail.

Are you trying that northern approach for something different or is it to save the cost of canoe rental and day pass to the campground? When were you thinking of going?

Bill Kirby wrote:Are you trying that northern approach for something different or is it to save the cost of canoe rental and day pass to the campground? When were you thinking of going?

More/less to see if it's possible.

Not looking favorable based on Mike's photo. :( But there is a ramp (consistent band of narrow green) on that northern section. You would need to hit it at just the right time when dropping in from 9N. I also see now how Alan got over the hard stuff by the water's edge from the direction of the campground.

I also have some pics from the boat I should look at more closely. There definitely looks like extended breaks in the trees to the north of the climbing, so those are likely impassible without gearing up, and possibly unsafe if wet/mossy as Mike remembers. Good armchair exploration nonetheless.

I have a boat ride once or twice a year for the cost of fuel if I want it. That isn't the point. I'd like to be able to hike there. I like hiking. It's doubtful this will be easier than the paddle from the campground. Bushwhacking is rarely easy in the ADKs. This IS the adventure.

Thinking of doing a drive-by for detailed photos before dropping gear next time we go. Does anyone know where the State land boundary is around Roger's Rock?

K.. Was just wondering if you needed a borrow a canoe. Sounds like you have a ride

Bill Kirby wrote:K.. Was just wondering if you needed a borrow a canoe. Sounds like you have a ride

Thanks though. ;-)

I have the Climbing Magazine issue Al is talking about. The printed description says 1200'. Go figure.

Kevin. you did not make it sound like you wanted to have an adventure hikeing to rogers. you came off like the whole thing is such a hassel there must be an easier way to get there...

jim you should know that climbers math over the years has been pretty darn fuzzy. often divide by two and you get the right number. most of the old pitch lengths were fiction. the advent of 60m ropes exposed many inacuracys.

Nick Goldsmith wrote:Kevin. you did not make it sound like you wanted to have an adventure hikeing to rogers. you came off like the whole thing is such a hassel there must be an easier way to get there...

For me boating is a hassle (since I don't own one). For me it would be logistically easier to walk there, if possible. Doesn't mean it would actually be less strenuous. What we find ironic is that you think paddling 15 minutes to get there is harder than bushwhacking, and lecture us/me about how paddling is more adventurous.

Re-reading my posts I don't see anything that indicates I was looking for easier or softer. Not even implied. You're on your own here Nick.