“I really loved this one … because I thought it was [a] commentary on not wearing fur, ‘cause I hate fur and I don’t wear fur.” - Lady Gaga on her much-discussed Kermit the Frog coat by Jean Charles de Castelbajac. And here we were thinking it was a commentary on the fact that it’s not easy being green.

Of all the trends that popped up last week during New York Fashion Week (so much more on that later), the one that took us by surprise most was the use of fur by designers who’d never designed with animal skins in the past.

First, we saw it at Ohne Titel, then at Alexander Wang and Thakoon (whose shows were actually sponsored by Saga Furs), and then finally at Marchesa (left).

We’re not really sure what this means - has fur become more acceptable? Is it a backlash against “restrained” times? - but consider this: Fall 09 was the first time in ages that PETA didn’t protest at the Tents.

In fact, the PETA presence was much less this time around, which makes us wonder, has fur won the battle?

We dragged our ragged selves out of bed this morning to make it to the Tents by 9am for the J Mendel show (oh yeah, it started much closer to 10) armed with Wellies at the advice of Weather.com (more on that later).

And it was worth it - It was our first time seeing a particularly fur-centric designer, which we totally forgot when we asked the security guard why he needed to look in everyone’s bag before entering (the woman in front of me actually had to take her peach out of its plastic bag to prove that the round object with an unusually long stem was, in fact, fruit.)

The clothes were as elegant and high quality Banana Republic-ish as you would expect, but the best part was the closing dress. A strapless, metallic, silk moire gown (which haven’t been much of a force this season) with pleated tulle, massive ribbons, and a back that floated to give the dress a sort of ghost train. It set off our favorite part of Fashion Week - Instant and genuine applause from a grateful crowd (a Fall 09 first)!

For your pleasure, my makeshift video (images after the jump) of the closing dress on its final round.

“In a meat-eating world, wearing leather for shoes and even clothes and handbags, the discussion of fur is childish.” - Karl Lagerfeld, to the BBC.

Cassandra, Menswear Designer

Got Her: At Mott and Prince

Stalked Her: Because it’s winter and it took all our self-will not to roll out of bed wearing sweatpants and a sleeping bag. This chick proves that you can stay cozy while staying cute.

Shot Her: Because her baggy sweater with furry collar is just the sort of piece you can wear everywhere this season, and yet it still manages to have an eclectic, “oh I got this while on one of my word travels” feel. (Not to mention, her neck is probably really warm.) Plus, we love the graphic touches, like the pattern of her dress and the graffiti Marc Jacobs bag.

She Says: eBay, eBay, Japan (as she points to each piece)

We Say: Eclectic finds = eclectic look.

—HAYLEY PHELAN

Scene: Crossing Bowery, at Houston, a bus almost runs us over.

Britt: Oh my god! It’s wearing Anna’s hair!

Natalie: What?

Britt: The animal is wearing Anna’s hair!

Natalie: What are you talking about?

Britt: I think it’s a wildcat - on the bus! It has her bangs and everything with some sexy pink highlights thrown in. “They look just as stupid wearing yours.”

Natalie: That’s kind of brilliant.

Britt: More effective than pie throwing, I’m sure.

Natalie: I don’t know why, but I feel like Anna would laugh.

Britt: They should’ve given the raccoon Olsen hair.

Please excuse the blurry pic, this really was on the side of a moving bus. You can read about the campaign and get a clearer, but smaller picture, here.

We put as much trust in the labels on our clothing as we do in the labels on our food. As in, we believe whatever it says. But apparently, this may not be so smart.

The Humane Society just filed a pretty hefty lawsuit against Dillard’s, Lord & Taylor, Macy’s, Saks, Neiman Marcus and Andrew & Suzanne, over claims that independent tests proved that clothing sold in their stores labeled as “faux fur” contained actual fur, which would be a major legal (and ethical) no-no.

Over three years of buying clothes from all these stores, the Humane Society found twelve instances of mislabeled fur items, including a “faux fur” coat from Neiman Marcus that turned out to be made of rabbit skins.

So far, none of the stores have issued official comments, though time is running out - they have twenty days to come up with their official explanation of exactly how this happened.

No word yet on whether PETA’s planning on dousing the stores in ketchup and flour - and exactly how much people paid for these “faux” jackets made of real (read: much more expensive) fur. Not that we really like either choiceanyway.

WWD has been documenting the downfall of our economy, and all the fashion roadkill that’s gone with it. Today’s reported victim? Cashmere.

According to their research, knitwear manufacturers are producing much less cashmere for Spring because it’s probably too expensive for most people right now. They say companies are trying to put out more wallet-friendly cotton blends, and Qi Cashmere has even dropped the “Cashmere” from their brand name.

So here’s something we just realized: If people start buying less cashmere (though we admit, we love it), and more cotton-based clothes, that probably means a whole lot less dry cleaning, which means a cleaner environment (perc, the solvent typically used by dry cleaners, is considered a hazardous air contaminant by the EPA), not to mention one fewer monthly bill.

And it doesn’t stop there - If people still want to shop but want to keep the per-instance footprint on their checking account as small as possible, they’ll probably avoid expensive furs and leathers (so we guess PETA members can sleep a little sounder), too.

And who knows, maybe this will turn into more farmers planting cotton to get in on the trend, which would only make its price drop further for everyone.

But back to this economy-environment relationship - could what happens to us financially impact what we do to our environment? Guess we’ll find out - Unless of course, we get a Zoot Suit effect, in which case, prepare to see certain ladies strolling Madison in full-length mink capes.

This just in from out and about:

Henri Bendel is going fur free!

We’d expand a little more, but we’re about to be late to Alexander Wang’s show -

Back soon!

Although we don’t know anything about fashion, we’d like to make a claim about Gareth Pugh’s ratty mink coat, as seen in the latest W:

It’s the most subversive anti-fur protest we’ve ever seen, and as such, we think it’s brilliant.

The coat plays on the classic fault lines of outsider and insider - the “anti fur” stance in fashion is often stuck with the “outsider” label, thanks largely to PETA and their disrespectful and immature protest tactics. Okay, Christy Turlington once said she’d rather go naked than wear fur - but she’s still modeled for houses that use it. And although Stella McCartney is a vegan designer, her parent company is the Gucci Group, who would skin zebras and kittens if it meant the latest It Bag. Meanwhile, the “insider” name gets tagged to Fendi and J. Mendel - both houses whose fur legacy continues, thanks to ingenious design.

But that’s where Gareth enters the picture. He’s a fabulous fabric architect, so he can build a great jacket. He’s also a master prankster, in the vein of Tim Burton or Damien Hirst, and his exploration of grim grins is part of his blackly beautiful style. His rat mink “passes” the style bar because it’s well built and terrifically terrifying - it references Isabella Blow at her darkest and hottest. It reflects the Grey Gardens sense of beautiful decay. It looks like Johnny Depp would dig it.

But the joke is really on the wearer. It may be a beautiful and historically rich piece of fashion - but it’s also a pile of dead rats. Which you’re wearing because you think it makes you look powerful/ beautiful/ rich/ It.

In fact, it’s just gross. So is fur, unless it belongs to a living animal. Thank you Gareth.

We’re not comfortable wearing fur, or even faux fur, but we also really dislike (perhaps even despise) the immature and ultimately ineffective tactics at Peta.

After realizing that dumping red paint on people is both grounds for a lawsuit and a violation of their own supposed belief that all living things (including people) deserve respect, they’ve moved onto a new tactic:

Dressing up their members like slutty, tacky PETA “cops.”

An interview with Ingrid Newkirk – PETA’s president and co-founder in today’s New York Observer explains the rationale behind their thongs.

“You may feel more comfortable just arguing things intellectually. But that isn’t the way society is now; it’s all Paris Hilton and Britney Spears and ‘Show us your tits,’” Ms. Newkirk said.”

Newkirk also points out that young and emerging designers hardly ever use fur. She blames the persistence of fur on older designers stuck in their ways and shock-tactic aficionados:

“I think the old fogy designers like Karl Lagerfeld and so on, and the desperate designers like Alexander McQueen who want to be bad boys—Jean Paul Gaultier—they really want to be like, ‘Look at me, look at me! Aren’t I just shameless?’

Weirdly, we think what’s really shameless is exploiting your female members for their boobs intead of their brains, which could certainly be used to passionately but respectfully explain why using fur is wrong.

Meanwhile, it seems like PETA’s on the losing end of the industry, again:

Today, Oscar de la Renta announced a new licensing deal to produce a line of fur coats for his Fall and Winter collections.

—ALISON COOL

We’ve been trying to pinpoint the difference between wearing fake fur and wearing real fur.

While we know it’s far more ethically responsible to don fake instead of real- after all, no animals would have been harmed in the making- part of us thinks it still makes the wearer guilty by association. Kind of like smoking fake cigarettes on the playground- you’re sending the same message whether the vice is real or not.

Like when we saw Kate Moss wearing her leopard print jacket on the Vogue Best Dressed list, we craved an animal print bomber just like hers, even if only for a moment. But, how are we supposed to know if Kate chose a Stella-approved fake, or a real vintage find from TopShop’s basement?

We’ve also been wondering why faux fur is so expensive. We spotted a leopard cover-up (just like Kate’s!) from Urban Outfitters- but with a price tag of almost $200. Couldn’t we find a real vintage fur for less? And wouldn’t that be more ethical since it’s vintage and not a harmful, synthetic “fast-fashion” jacket?

Would you choose fake over vintage? Or is it never okay to rock any animal’s skin but your own?

—BRITT ABOUTALEB