Looking at the bottom photo it seems to me that to rig to avoid the flowstone would possibly involve a really tight deviation higher up, but it's almost impossible to tell from the shots what 'should' be happening. Personally I don't have an issue with any of those shots - they're not muddy and all seem to be wearing sympathetic clothing, and the flowstone appears robust. And if the entire cave is covered in the stuff does that mean no-one can visit or explore it? Or just the first 'lucky' few? If we can't go caving somewhere because it's 'too attractive' to be there, then we really are in a quandary. Put tape down and accept a tiny bit of 'change' (as it's only 'damage' under very specific criteria) as a result of the discovery. My main project is still locked (at the landowner's request), but it's to protect mining archaeology whilst it's documented, but we won't prevent folks from accessing it once it has been, even though it can't be removed or protected any better.
If breaking stal means a massive extension to a promising cave (and there have been plenty), who makes the call? If you ask the 'authorities' for their opinion, whoever they might be, they will inevitably say no, even though they'll never see or appreciate the 'before' or the 'after' - or even really understand the question. And what about breaking through boulder chokes - really? That's an irrevocable change to the cave fabric that can never be restored, and folks post photos of themselves doing that every week - I don't really understand when the 'moral' part kicks in if it's breaking flowstone instead of 'just' muddy boulders.
Maybe it's because I cave in Derbyshire mostly, but I don't get that excited by flowstone - it's just an obvious byproduct of a chemical reaction, though it's undeniably attractive. But there's some stal on the wall of a local car-park near my house. Caves without flowstone deposits are no less interesting for not having them, and probably don't get the protection they should as a result, and mines probably even less so. I hammered quite a few inches off the vein-wall of a Scheduled Monument the other day, but it was mostly mud or shitty lilac sugar-spar, trying to find some good limestone to get an anchor in. And I had permission. But the choice (imposed by the landowner) is either: knock off some mineral to put anchors in and make it safer, or: no-one can legally visit it ever again. If it had been stal rather than fluorite, no doubt we would have tried every option to avoid damaging it, but why is 100,000 years 'more important' than 300 million years? If there were no other option, I would still have knocked it off to get an anchor in.
:ang: 
