With no disrespect intended, you can't possibly think that is a new or mind-blowing observation? In fact, many people that make that argument somehow think the solution to this 'glaring inconsistency' is to allow lead for waterfowl hunting rather than ban it for dove hunting.
Hell guys, not so long ago, I listened to a LWF Commissioner say 'waterfowl habitat and snipe habitat are not the same thing' when we first proposed banning use of lead-shot for snipe hunting on our WMAs. Seriously? The best snipe hunting is on our moist-soil impoundments, managed precisely for waterfowl hunting. He had to leave the Commission before we could get THAT common-sense change made. Just this year were we able to eliminate lead-shot for dove hunting on WMAs and leased dove fields.
Because of the controversial nature of banning lead-shot for waterfowl hunting, very little has been studied as much. Just peruse the literature cited of the publication at: http://people.eku.edu/sumithrans/Migrat/READINGS/pbpoison/Pbpoison.htm.
There was a tremendous scientific foundation for addressing lead-poisoning in waterfowl from controlled lab studies to nationwide gizzard collections to shooting trials using both computer-guided shotguns and field-shooting under hunting conditions. Even with that, it was a judicial decision involving the Endangered Species Act that forced a nationwide ban on lead-shot for waterfowl hunting.
If a similar scientific effort is required to further ban lead shot for say dove hunting, especially when we know there are situations like you describe where waterfowl will be hunted in the same habitat ..... but there are LOTS of doves killed where that is NOT the case, then those inconsistencies will exist for quite some time.
And I think most hunters would say .......... I don't care; I'm fine with that.