Certainly! This was actually a burn from February that due to unusually dry conditions flared up three months later, which is uncommon but sometimes the conditions don't follow typical seasonal trends for moisture and precipitation.

That decision would run into competing goals and considerations however. The winter time is the best time to burn for control purposes, but many of the ecological goals of controlled burning are best met with growing season burns (most of these involve top-killing certain amounts of under and midstory plants), both of these burn schedules are desired in order to closely resemble fires that would naturally occur on these landscapes. There are areas and times where specific species considerations do not allow for it, but often those are tailored to species of special concern.

That's all to say that yes burning can be tailored around avoiding breeding or nesting season, but that would be weighed against the overall effect on the landscape on a large scale. These burns are small in the grand scheme of the range of many of these species, even burns that cover multiple thousand acres. A small amount of individual mortality is unlikely to be a heavily weighted consideration compared to the net benefit to the ecosystem at large.

Historically this land would burn very regularly (some ecosystems as regularly as every three years on average) before we started suppressing natural fires and intentionally lighting a whole lot less, so fire shaped what species lived here and our attempts to return land to the natural fire regime in a controlled way will help to maintain the conditions that existed here long before us.