Thirty-nine mule deer fawns (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus) were captured in south-central Washington in 1977. The fawns were 1-24 days old and weighed 2.9-9.7 kg. The average age at capture was 6.9 ? 5.2 days. Fawns were located daily May through August, and monthly through December. Average distance traveled by fawns from the previous day's location during an approximate 24-hour period for the Ist 3 months of life was highly variable and averaged 438 m. The mean home range was 257 ha for fawns approximately 60 days old or older. Total mortality was 14 out of 26 radio-instrumented fawns. Predation by coyotes (Canis latrans) accounted for 10 of the losses. Drowning caused 3 deaths, and circulatory collapse accounted for 1 death. Combined fawn mortality was 54%. High variability in average daily distance traveled by individual fawns indicates that age is not reliable as the sole factor for predicting fawn movements. Intensive coyote removal on the study area probably would not substantially reduce total mortality in the fawn population. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 44(2):381-388 This study addressed factors responsible for neonatal mortality of radio-instrumented mule deer in south-central Washington. The research was conducted on the United States Department of Energy Hanford Reservation. To the north and east, the reservation is bounded by the Columbia River. Hunting has not been permitted on the Benton County portion of the Hanford Reservation since the federal government took control of the land in 1943. However, coyote control programs continued through 1970. The Hanford Reservation has not been used for agriculture or ranching during the past 30 years, and unauthorized personnel are not permitted on the area. All known past and current studies of natural mortality of mule deer fawns have been or are being conducted in areas open to seasonal hunting of mule deer and unregulated predator control programs. An ideal area for studies of natural mortality should feature special characteristics such as a nonmigratory herd of mule deer; minimal disturbance or harassment by man; absence of hunting of deer and coyote; absence of coyote control programs; lack of competition for forage between deer and livestock; and no alternate large prey species, such as sheep, for coyote populations. The Hanford Reservation closely approximates these special characteristics. We acknowledge and thank the following: K. Gano, C. McShane, M. LaRiviere, B. Goins, and L. Leschner for assistance with fawn capture and tagging; J. J. England, Colorado State University Diagnostic Laboratory, for necropsy and analysis for fawn diseases; D. Beaty of Telonics Telemetry-Electronics Consultants; C. Sauer and T. Dyal for manuscript preparation; the Northwest College and University Association for Science, Richland, Washington, for personnel funding; Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories of Richland, Washington, for materials and funding; and W. H. Rickard of Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories for counsel, supervision, and support throughout the course of this study. 'Work performed by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories under Department of Energy Contract EY-76-C-06-1830 on the Hanford National Environmental Research Park, Richland, Washington. J. Wildl. Manage. 44(2):1980 381 This content downloaded from 128.193.8.24 on Wed, 28 Aug 2013 19:01:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 382 MULE DEER FAWN MORTALITY AND MOVEMENTS* Steigers and Flinders