23 months

I don't understand dog fighting. Why would someone raise animals with the sole purpose of placing them in a confined space to try and kill one another? What kind of person takes pleasure in viewing this activity, let alone placing bets on it? Better yet, who in their right mind thinks it's a good idea to electrocute, drown or hang dogs because they aren't vicious enough?
By now I'm sure you all know what and who I'm talking about. This past week Michael Vick was sentenced to 23 months in prison for his part in operating, funding, and participating in a dog fighting ring. While I had heard about the story for months, I didn't know the details of how these dogs were killed.
I've heard of dog fighting before and I was under the impression that the dogs that were deemed unworthy were shot. I found that disturbing enough, but then I read about the creative ways these people killed their dogs and I was shocked. Who does that?!
Now having said that I also have to say I don't agree with the sentencing.

That's right. I don't think Michael Vick (or anyone else that participates in dog fighting) should be imprisoned for nearly 2 years.

I'm sure my opinion is an unpopular one, so I'll try my best to explain myself.
There's no doubt in my mind that Michael Vick should be punished for his crime because that is what it is, a crime. Dog fighting is illegal and since he participated in an illegal activity there has to be a consequence. I could get behind him paying a rather large fine (millions), community service with PETA or another animal rights group, or a combination of the two. Heck, I could even agree with him going to jail for a shorter amount of time -up to 6 months- but I think it is a bit extreme to place him in prison for almost two years. To take him away from his children and family for 2 years is over the top in my opinion.
I don't understand how Mary Winkler can murder her husband and is only sentenced to 210 days, but Michael Vick is sentenced to 23 months.
I'd rather have my prisons hold rapists, murderers, and child molesters rather than participants in dog-fighting rings.
I also have to wonder why hunting, fishing, and bull riding are deemed ok by society and are legal, but dog-fighting isn't. You could argue that at least when hunting we are using the animal for food, but the last time I checked there wasn't a shortage of meat at the grocery store nor is meat required for survival. Vegetarians seem to get along just fine.
One could also argue that it's brutal to make dogs fight to the death, but is it that much different from hooking a fish in the mouth, pulling it out of it's natural habitat and essentially allowing it to suffocate to death? Also, is wrapping a rope around a bull's testicles and having a cowboy ride him purely for entertainment wrong? I'm not saying these situations are exactly the same, or that they are even wrong, I just find it odd that they seem similar in nature, yet I don't see anyone calling for these participants head on a platter like Vick.
Hear what I'm saying. I'm not condoning what MV did at all, I actually find it rather disgusting. I just happen to be in the minority that believes the punishment doesn't fit the crime.