While big tech companies are growing more circumspect about the use of facial recognition for humans, interest in nonhuman facial recognition is surging. The identification of animals at the level of the individual, rather than the species, has long been of interest for ecologists and others. Drawing on research with scientists and computer programmers working on computer vision tools for ecology, this paper examines the development of a facial recognition tool for bears, highlighting the contingent social, material, and technical processes involved in new practices of digitally monitoring wildlife. Making animal facial recognition entails the creative repurposing of computer vision tools like object detection systems and reflects the social processes that shape the accumulation of data about animal life (and make biometric identification possible). By bringing together science and technology studies (STS) research on algorithms and artificial intelligence with studies of the environment and wildlife, the article also addresses how machinic processes of identification relate to longstanding debates over what the human relationship with wildlife and wilderness should be. Facial recognition tools promise to individualize bears at scale: these new forms of individuation and identification produce new affective between humans and wild animals that unsettle boundaries and categorizations like wild or domestic.
AndersonCarlos J. R.Da Vitoria LoboNielsRothJames D.WatermanJane M.. 2010. “Computer-Aided Photo-Identification System with an Application to Polar Bears Based on Whisker Spot Patterns.” Journal of Mammalogy91 (6): 1350–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1644/09-mamm-a-425.1.
2.
ArreguiAníbal G.2023. “Reversible Pigs: An Infraspecies Ethnography of Wild Boars in Barcelona.” American Ethnologist50 (1): 115–28. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.13114.
3.
ArzoumanianZavenHolmbergJasonNormanBradley. 2005. “An Astronomical Pattern-Matching Algorithm for Computer-Aided Identification of Whale Sharks Rhincodon Typus.” Journal of Applied Ecology42 (6): 999–1011. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01117.x.
4.
AwadAli Ismail. 2016. “From Classical Methods to Animal Biometrics: A Review on Cattle Identification and Tracking.” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture123: 423–35. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2016.03.014.
BuolamwiniJoyGebruTimnit. 2018. “Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification.” Proceedings of Machine Learning Research81: 1–15.
12.
CagnacciFrancescaBoitaniLuigiPowellRoger A.BoyceMark S.. 2010. “Animal Ecology Meets GPS-Based Radiotelemetry: A Perfect Storm of Opportunities and Challenges.” Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences365 (1550): 2157–62. doi:https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0107.
13.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022a. DNA Evidence Prompts Revised Response To Tahoe Keys Bear Incidents. Sacramento, CA: State of California.
14.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022b. The Food-Habituated Tahoe Keys Bear. Sacramento, CA: State of California.
15.
CaplanJane.2002. “‘This or That Particular Person’: Protocols of Identification in Nineteenth-Century Europe.” In Documenting Individual Identity, edited by CaplanJaneTorpeyJohn, 49–66. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
16.
CassidyRebecca.2002. The Sport of Kings: Kinship, Class, and Thoroughbred Breeding in Newmarket. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
ChuaLiana.2018. “Too Cute to Cuddle? “Witnessing Publics” and Interspecies Relations on the Social Media-Scape of Orangutan Conservation.” Anthropological Quarterly91 (3): 873–903. doi:https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.75750.
18.
ClaphamMelanieMillerEdNguyenMaryDarimontChris T.. 2020. “Automated Facial Recognition for Wildlife That Lack Unique Markings: A Deep Learning Approach for Brown Bears.” Ecology and Evolution10 (23): 12883–92. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6840.
ColeSimon A.2001. Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
DentonEmilyHannaAlexAmironeseiRazvanSmartAndrewNicoleHilary. 2021. “On the Genealogy of Machine Learning Datasets: A Critical History of Imagenet.” Big Data & Society, 8 (2): 1–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211035955.
FinnCatherineGrattarolaFlorenciaPincheira-DonosoDaniel. 2023. “More Losers Than Winners: Investigating Anthropocene Defaunation Through the Diversity of Population Trends.” Biological Reviews98 (5): 1732–48. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12974.
28.
FranklinJonathan.2022. “DNA Evidence Shows Hank the Tank Didn’t Work Alone.” NPR, February 24.
29.
GalloTravisWaittDamon. 2011. “Creating a Successful Citizen Science Model to Detect and Report Invasive Species.” BioScience61 (6): 459–65. doi:https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.6.8.
30.
GatesKelly.2011. Our Biometric Future: Facial Recognition Technology and the Culture of Surveillance. New York: NYU Press.
GovindrajanRadhika.2015. “Monkey Business: Macaque Translocation and the Politics of Belonging in India’s Central Himalayas.” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East35 (2): 246–62. doi:https://doi.org/10.1215/1089201x-3139024.
33.
GreeneJoel L.2010. Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
34.
GrünenbergKristinaMøhlPerleOlwigKaren FogSimonsenAnja. 2022. “Issue Introduction: IDentities and Identity: Biometric Technologies, Borders and Migration.” Ethnos87 (2): 211–22. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2020.1743336.
35.
HebblewhiteMarkHaydonT. Daniel. 2010. “Distinguishing Technology from Biology: A Critical Review of the Use of GPS Telemetry Data in Ecology.” Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences365 (1550): 2303–12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0087.
36.
HelmreichStefan.2005. “How Scientists Think; About ‘Natives’, for Example. A Problem of Taxonomy Among Biologists of Alien Species in Hawai’i.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute11 (1): 107–28. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2005.00228.x.
37.
JatonFlorian.2017. “We Get the Algorithms of Our Ground Truths: Designing Referential Databases in Digital Image Processing.” Social Studies of Science47 (6): 811–40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717730428.
38.
JonesOwain.2000. “(Un)ethical Geographies of Human–Non-Human Relations: Encounters, Collectives and Spaces.” In Animal Spaces, Beastly Places, edited by PhiloChrisWilbertChris, 268–291. Oxford: Taylor & Francis Group.
39.
KangEdward B.2022. “Biometric Imaginaries: Formatting Voice, Body, Identity to Data.” Social Studies of Science52 (4): 581–602. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127221079599.
40.
Katmai National Park and Preserve. 2022. Bears of Brooks River 2022: A Guide to their Identification, Lives, and Habitats (edited by National Park Service). Katmai National Park and Preserve: U.S. Department of the Interior.
LinTsung-YiMaireMichaelBelongieSergeHaysJamesPeronaPietroRamananDevaDollárPiotrZitnickC. Lawrence. 2014. “Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context.” In Computer Vision – ECCV 2014, edited by David Fleet, Tomas Pajdla, Bernt Schiele, Tinne Tuytelaars, 740-755. Cham: Springer.
43.
LincolnFrederick C.1921. “The History and Purposes of Bird Banding.” The Auk38 (2): 217–28. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/4073884.
44.
LinnéTobias. 2016. “Cows on Facebook and Instagram: Interspecies Intimacy in the Social Media Spaces of the Swedish Dairy Industry.” Television & New Media17 (8): 719–33. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476416653811.
45.
LorimerJamie.2007. “Nonhuman Charisma.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space25 (5): 911–32. doi:https://doi.org/10.1068/d71j.
46.
LoweCelia.2006. Wild Profusion: Biodiversity Conservation in an Indonesian Archipelago. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
LynchMichaelColeSimon A.McNallyRuthJordanKathleen. 2008. Truth Machine: The Contentious History of DNA Fingerprinting. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
49.
MansfieldBarbara.2003. “From Catfish to Organic Fish: Making Distinctions About Nature as Cultural Economic Practice.” Geoforum34 (3): 329–42. doi:10.1016/S0016-7185(03)00004-6.
M’charekAmadeHagendijkRobde VriesWiebe. 2013. “Equal Before the Law: On the Machinery of Sameness in Forensic DNA Practice.” Science, Technology, & Human Values38 (4): 542–65. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243912453623.
53.
M’charekAmadeSchrammKatharina. 2020. “Encountering the Face—Unraveling Race.” American Anthropologist122 (2): 321–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13390.
Nieves DelgadoAbigail.2022. “Race and Statistics in Facial Recognition: Producing Types, Physical Attributes, and Genealogies.” Social Studies of Science53 (6): 813–953. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127221127666.
63.
NobleSafiya Umoja. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York: NYU Press.
64.
OdellJenny.2019. How to Do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House.
65.
O’NeilCathy.2016. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. New York: Crown.
PhoebusIsobelBoulangerJohnGeir EikenHansFløystadIdaGrahamKarenHagenSnorre B.SorensenAnjaStenhouseGordon. 2020. “Comparison of Grizzly Bear Hair-Snag and Scat Sampling Along Roads to Inform Wildlife Population Monitoring.” Wildlife Biology2020 (3):1–12. doi:https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00697.
68.
PlemonsEric.2017. The Look of a Woman: Facial Feminization Surgery and the Aims of Trans-Medicine. Durham: Duke University Press.
69.
RitvoHarriet.1987. The Animal Estate: The English and Other Creatures in the Victorian Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
70.
SeaverNick.2017. “Algorithms as Culture: Some Tactics for the Ethnography of Algorithmic Systems.” Big Data & Society4 (2):205395171773810. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717738104.
71.
SeaverNick.2019. “Knowing Algorithms.” In digitalSTS: A Field Guide for Science & Technology Studies, edited by VertesiJanetRibesDavid, 412–22. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
72.
StarkLuke.2019. “Facial Recognition Is the Plutonium of AI.” XRDS: Crossroads, the ACM Magazine for Students25 (3): 50–5. doi:10.1145/3313129.
73.
SwansonHeather Anne. 2019. “An Unexpected Politics of Population: Salmon Counting, Science, and Advocacy in the Columbia River Basin.” Current Anthropology60 (S20):S272–85. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/703392.
74.
TaylorSimon MichaelGulsonKalervo N.McDuie-RaDuncan. 2023. “Artificial Intelligence from Colonial India: Race, Statistics, and Facial Recognition in the Global South.” Science, Technology, & Human Values48 (3): 663–89. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211060839.
75.
TelescaJennifer E.2020. Red Gold: The Managed Extinction of the Giant Bluefin Tuna. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
76.
TurnbullJonathonSearleAdamAdamsWilliam. M.. 2020. “Quarantine Encounters with Digital Animals: More-Than-Human Geographies of Lockdown Life.” Journal of Environmental Media1: 6.1–6.10. doi:https://doi.org/10.1386/jem_00027_1.
77.
Van DoorenThomKirkseyEbenMünsterUrsula. 2016. “Multispecies Studies: Cultivating Arts of Attentiveness.” Environmental Humanities8 (1): 1–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3527695.
Von EssenEricaTurnbullJonathonSearleAdamJørgensenFinnHofmeesterTimvan der WalRené. 2021. “Wildlife in the Digital Anthropocene: Examining Human-Animal Relations Through Surveillance Technologies.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 6 (1):679–99. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486211061704.
80.
WangXiaowei.2020. Blockchain Chicken Farm: And Other Stories of Tech in China’s Countryside. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
