Nearly five months since the Tamarack Fire burned almost 70,000 acres and destroyed dozens of buildings and homes, business owners in Markleeville, California aren't sure about its long term financial impacts.
"As far as commerce goes, we're going to need some traffic flowing through here," said Joey Daly, owner of Out West Café in Markleeville. "In order for any of these businesses to survive."
Daly said it's frustrating to hear the number of people who walk into his coffee shop saying they thought the town of Markleeville was destroyed in the fire.
"I want people to know that Markleeville is here. It still is a cool town. It's the town that everyone knows and remembers," said Daly.
When the Tamarack Fire exploded in growth on July 16, Daly had to evacuate during what is typically his busiest time of the year.
Alpine County greatly relies on tourism for its businesses. With so much of the area burned, it could take awhile to bring visitors back.
"We had a beautiful lush forest and campgrounds, fishing and everything before," said Daly. "This has nothing to do with the fault of Alpine County. Or the residents of Alpine County. But we're the ones that are suffering the most."
As the wildfire burned lands in both Nevada and California, state and federal politicians began demanding answers from the Forest Service.
Nevada Assemblyman Jim Wheeler sent Attorney General Ford a letter in July, asking his office to pursue litigation against the government entity.
Wheeler said Ford responded about a month later recommending the inspector general, but saying he'd continue looking into pursuing legal action.
Wheeler is frustrated by the lack of accountability.
Attorney General Ford's office confirmed to News 4-Fox 11 they have no update on the matter.
"In Douglas County, people lost their homes. Lost their outbuildings. Lost their views. Lost their peace of mind," said Wheeler. "So these people, I believe, need to be compensated."
The Nevada assemblyman for District 39 said he knows the fire could have been put out almost immediately, but Forest Service policy prevented it.
Lightning ignited the Tamarack Fire on July 4. The blaze only burned about a quarter acre for almost two weeks before rapidly spreading.
The Forest Service said due to rugged terrain, the small size of the fire, it being surrounded by rocky terrain, and fire resources spread thin, they chose to let the Tamarack burn without an initial attack.
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest drew ire from many after sharing a Facebook video of the fire on July 10. It would grow out of control just six days later.
According to Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest documents obtained in a News 4 public records request, the agency acknowledged the impending response against them.
"We expect significant scrutiny of our decision to monitor this fire," said one email dated July 17 as the fire expanded in size.
Representative Tom McClintock from California's 4th District said he's planning to introduce legislation early next year to change Forest Service policy via statute. McClintock's district represents many Californians affected by the Tamarack Fire.
"They had the resources to fly a helicopter over that fire every single day to take pictures for their Facebook page," said McClintock. "But they didn't bother to drop a bucket of water on it to put the damn thing out."
He said he's consulting with fire professionals for his legislation, calling the current fire fighting policy, "radical environmentalism run amok."
McClintock requested information from the chief of the Forest Service in July regarding the initial efforts to suppress the fire.
He said the response from his inquiry was promising at first when the chief issued a command to conduct an immediate initial attack on all fires during the rest of this fire season.
But McClintock said next year isn't as promising, noting that the Forest Service is unlikely to once again enact its 10 a.m. policy.
The 10 a.m. policy means all forest fires must be suppressed by 10 a.m. the next day after being spotted to prevent large spread.
The Forest Service was unavailable to comment for this story.
"As counterintuitive as it sounds, the smaller the fire, the higher the priority it should be," said McClintock. "Because the smaller fires are easily extinguished with one crew, or one or two aerial drops."
McClintock's legislative proposal and criticisms aren't shared by everyone. Some fire experts point out the need for small fires to burn, or "good fires" as they call them, to prevent large-scale devastation from future wildfires.
"It's really easy to second guess the decision that got made then," said Zeke Lunder, a northern California pyrogeographer, regarding the decision to let the Tamarack burn. "It's fair to ask those questions."
But Lunder said he takes issue with people like Rep. Tom McClintock for turning the devastation into "political hay."
"If his idea of making us safer from fire is that we should put out all fires, all the time, then he's really not serving our interest," said Lunder. "Every time there's something like the Tamarack happens, it makes it really hard for us to get good fire on the ground."