This is an interesting topic! There are lots of people on both sides but I believe there is room for topic and an amiable solution. First, I'd like to start off by saying I don't think there are many people with two wolves to begin breeding to begin with (I may be mistaken, but I believe The Regent is the only one). That being said, I think the concerns are definitely valid. If there's only one person who's able to produce an war item that's untradeable, I can see why the need for these laws would arise.

I do think there's room for compromise, though.

These suggestions are with the presumption that total war means no holds bar, that means, diamond armor, potions, etc. First, in cases of total war, those in the defending position should be limited to 75 dogs per breeder. The reason being that there should, realistically, be an advantage to those in the defending position. If the owner of the wolves is in the attacking position, I say we limit it to 30 dogs per attacking breeder. It doesn't make sense that an attacker shouldn't use something to his/her advantage. Second, users that are using wolves are not allowed to ender pearl. Personally I think this makes sense so that people playing against wolves can defend against them adequately.

That being said, lore battles should have compromise from both attacking and defending sides. Both parties should decide on what is legal and what isn't. This includes wolves, potions, types of armor, etc. so that both parties are satisfied. My only gripe is you could almost view this agreement as a contract, and if a person breaks the contract in battle, what is the precedent for punishment, if contract law isn't internationally recognized? Some food for thought.

I'd also like to note that the current battle style of "team deathmatch" is very boring and there is a lot of room for improvement. I think I'll make a second post and possible game modes to allow for more flexible/more interesting strategies in battle.

Anyways those are my two cents and I think my proposition allows for a healthier discussion, because currently it seems like the two camps are "no wolf laws, as many wolves in battle" and "wolf laws, one wolf per battle".

Not that my vote will count when the time to tally arises but I am in favor of option B; however, with one small change. Instead of 1 wolf, raise it to a max of 2.

My reasoning is mostly the way I imagine that a real wolf would feel better having another wolf around.