Summary of Key Points
The blogger “Lü Daxia V50” attracted public attention by questioning the obstruction of Provincial Highway S462 by the Daocheng Yading scenic area and the mandatory 120-yuan fee for sightseeing vehicles. He confronted the issue directly by driving into the area on his own. Initially, the scenic area responded in a perfunctory manner (punishing employees who allowed access and reducing prices without addressing the core issues). Following criticism from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, the Ganzi Prefecture established a multi-departmental task force to investigate and rectify the situation, temporarily suspending the fees for sightseeing and battery-powered vehicles, with pricing to be determined after a cost review. The legality of the highway blockade is still under investigation. This incident highlights the controversy surrounding the scenic area’s practice of tying public road access to commercial charges, as well as the vulnerable position of tourists in such situations.
Detailed Analysis
#### 1. The Core Dispute: Provincial Highway S462 – Why Is a Public Road Being Charged by a Scenic Area?
This is the most critical issue at the heart of the controversy. The blogger pointed out that the 38-kilometer stretch from the tourist center to Zhaguanbeng is part of Provincial Highway S462, which should be accessible for free. The scenic area argued that it was a “dead-end road” used exclusively for their purposes. However, according to law, this road was officially designated as a provincial highway in 2022 and is protected by the Highway Law, meaning it has public access rights. The scenic area cannot claim both benefits (such as funding for construction and maintenance) while refusing free access to the public on the grounds that it was originally built by local villagers and is now used internally. Even if the area is within a nature reserve, restricting vehicle entry and charging for public use requires approval from the relevant authorities and provision of corresponding services (e.g., proper transportation). The 120-yuan fee seems more like a “road purchase” rather than a voluntary service.
#### 2. The Scenic Area’s Response: Perfunctory Measures That Only Aggravated the Problem
The scenic area’s initial responses failed to address the core issues:
- First response: They did not answer whether the highway blockade was legal and instead punished employees who allowed access, using excuses like the rugged terrain and proximity to cliffs. This was seen by the public as a distraction from the main issue (the legality of the charges).
- Second response: They reduced the fee from 120 yuan to 96 yuan (a 20% discount), but still did not explain why the charge was mandatory. This only fueled further backlash, indicating that they were not serious about resolving the problem.
This shows that the scenic area never truly addressed the issue and merely tried to avoid conflict, making things worse.
#### 3. Regulatory Intervention: From Criticism to Enhanced Action
The Ministry of Culture and Tourism had previously criticized Daocheng Yading for unreasonable ferry fees, long queues, and poor services in April, urging improvements. However, the scenic area ignored these concerns until the blogger’s actions drew widespread attention, prompting Ganzi Prefecture to form a task force involving multiple departments (development and reform, culture and tourism, transportation, etc.) to temporarily suspend all charges. The involvement of provincial authorities led to substantial progress.
Why did this intervention work? A multi-departmental approach signifies a serious effort: the development and reform department oversees pricing, the transportation department manages road access, and market regulators oversee unfair charges. This coordinated effort exposed the scenic area’s violations, forcing them to confront the issues head-on.
#### 4. The Scenic Area’s Logic of Charging: Shifting Responsibility onto Visitors?
The scenic area’s two main defenses were untenable:
- Safety: They claimed the road was dangerous and could cause altitude sickness, so self-driving was prohibited. However, there are many dangerous roads across the country (e.g., the Sichuan-Tibet route), and many high-altitude areas have similar issues. Safety risks should be addressed through improved facilities (speed limits, warning signs), not by imposing mandatory charges.
- Congestion: They argued that there was no parking space, so sightseeing vehicles were necessary. However, the construction of parking lots and traffic management are part of the scenic area’s operational costs and should have been considered during planning; failing to do so shifts the burden onto visitors.
In essence, the sightseeing service itself is not problematic (especially for elderly or children), but making it mandatory turns it into a form of entry fee, depriving visitors of their choice.
#### 5. Visitors’ Silence and the Power of Confrontation: Why Was the Blogger’s Action Important?
Most visitors to Yading see it as a once-in-a-lifetime trip and are willing to tolerate the 120-yuan fee due to a “let’s not make things more complicated” attitude. The blogger’s determination to avoid the fee and drive in on his own, along with documenting the issues, broke this pattern. He not only defended his rights but also made the public realize that established practices are not necessarily legal. For example, fees at Jiuzhaigou and Huangguoshu are common, but that does not justify similar charges at Yading.
There’s a legal principle that says, “Do not protect those who sleep on their rights.” The blogger’s actions show that asking “why” can lead to change.
Conclusion
The issue is still unresolved. While the fees have been suspended, the legal status of the highway blockade and the appropriate pricing for sightseeing vehicles remain undecided. However, this incident has made both the scenic area and regulatory authorities realize that visitors are no longer passive victims. Unreasonable charges will eventually be addressed. For us, encountering similar situations in the future, we should be more willing to question such practices, as our actions can contribute to improving regulations.