So it is clear from scientific studies that physiologically, anatomically, and instinctively, man is perfectly suited to a diet for fruit, vegetables, nuts, and grains. And plenty of carrion, although our delicate modern minds don't want to think about that. Quite a few archaeological sites of extremely early human habitations (2.5-1.8 million years ago, Homo habilis and Homo erectus) have yielded bones showing marks of human teeth made AFTER marks made by teeth of other species, as well as marks of early stone tools (and the presence of such tools, often broken and so discarded) indicating dissection of those animals. Analysis of human coprolites, or what would politely be described as fossilized dung, from Homo erectus sites already shows evidence of extensive meat consumption (actually coprolites are really nifty once you get over the ick factor), and human-made stone tools purely for the use of hunting, such as spear tips, first appear approximately 1.5 million years ago. That doesn't even allow for animals intentionally killed by such things as thrown stones, wooden or unmodified-bone implements such as clubs or fish gorges made from thorns, trapping, hand-catching (such as fish "tickling", egg collecting, or hunting for animal dens to catch extremely young animals), as well as the "lucky find" of an animal that died of natural causes. Mollusc shells (snails, clams, oysters) abound in Paleolithic sites located near water. As for the "impossibility" of eating raw flesh "without the use of a knife and fork", sorry Jen, but that's outright bunk. Hunter-gatherer tribes (what few survive Western, well, let's call a spade a spade, invasion and habitat destruction) do still do so - two of the anthropologists I studied under at university had spent many years in the Fifties, Sixties, and Seventies living with hunter-gatherer tribes as members of the tribes would live, one specializing in the Kalahari and the other with tribes in New Guinea and the Amazon. A great deal of perfectly edible animal protein does not even require being so much as smacked with a rock, although most of us wimpy Westerners wouldn't consider grubs, insects, raw eggs from wild-bird nests, and such as "edible". For example, Australian Aborigines who enjoy "bush tucker" (their traditional - and we're talking a good 50,000 years here - foods gleaned from the wild) covet a large moth larva called a witchetty grub, which would have most North Americans barfing on their shoes. Even some of the survival training of the American military include obtaining and consuming raw animal protein with one's bare hands, the basic assumption of the course being that one has lost all of one's equipment and being in an situation where building a fire with the old spinning stick technique isn't practical. (Someone I know went through advanced survival training and absolutely loved to tell gross-out stories about his dining adventures.) Personally, I agree with those who say that humans, like many of the other primate species, have evolved to be opportunistic omnivores - we as a species did and will eat pretty much anything we can get our grubby little hands on. It's only in relatively recent times that we've been able to afford to get as picky as we are now. As for whether I wear fur, leather, etc., I used to have a mink collar for my peacoat but it was cut from a coat from the 1960s and just got too tatty to wear, I have had hats and mittens from the skins of rabbits raised as food, and I once had slippers made from moosehide from a moose hunted for food. My leather jacket wore out and I haven't replaced it because they're too expensive. I wear leather shoes (or fabric ones) because plastic ones make my feet stinky and prone to fungi like athlete's foot, and as a previous poster points out, there's the whole petrochemical issue to non-leather shoes (besides fabric and latex rubber, and I dare ya to go through a New England winter in canvas shoes LOL) so you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. IIRC, anti-fur groups typically throw red paint (PETA claims that they do not advocate nor do they sponsor such actions), not blood, on fur-wearers. One reason I have heard straight from the mouth of one of these eco-vandals is that paint cannot be removed without destroying the fur, while blood can be removed fairly easily. (And then there's that minor hypocrisy of using blood to protest killing, unless these folks are donating their own blood to do it...)

She's not a kid--she's 19. I don't think she'll be outgrowing anything anymore. And denim is REALLY thick--I really wouldn't want that involved in a faux fur vest that is supposed to be sort of dressy. It would be really stiff, and the vest wouldn't drape prettily. Denim is rough, so it wouldn't slide easily over clothes. And I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to try sew both thick faux fur AND tough denim. That just seems like a really weird match--denim and faux fur. And denim as a lining for anything seems really weird; it's much more customary to have the lining be a lighter fabric. Denim's about the heaviest fabric I can think of. I thought all vests were lined simply using the vest pattern itself. That had always been my plan.

Does the fabric come with a backside or just a piece of fabric in the raw w/no backside, is the color true as shown ?

It would be labor intensive but those adhesive covered rollers used to take lint off of clothes works. You just have to change the sheet often. Also, some microfiber cloths will catch up that fur, too. You have to have lots of them and wash them when covered instead of trying to shake them out.