Why I dont list UVB as a requirement for house snakes.

On my caresheets I do not list UVB as a requirement, or state that the animals I keep do not *need* UVB. Some may argue with this. Thats ok.

I've been around long enough to remember a time when it was unpopular to suggest that iguanas dont need crickets. Turned out iguanas are actually herbivores and the "they need crickets" thing was just a bid to get unknowing but well intending keepers to buy crickets. Everyone's entitled to their opinions. However, I prefer science.

Dont get me wrong, i'm not against the practice. I'm really for advancing husbandry. Its just that this is a relatively new thing to the hobby. There hasn't been a single species specific scientific study with a large sample size to verify any measurable health benefit from the use of uvb lighting with house snakes over the course of their long lives. On the other hand there has been documented cases where various species of reptiles have been harmed by relatively short unnecessary UVB exposure. If you need convincing of that just google "reptile photokeratitis" or "uvb neoplasia reptiles", (yes that means cancer).  

We can take some guesses on where house snakes fall on that spectrum based on other species etc, but we dont really know. this isn't exactly consequence-less matter of preference either. This is radiation were talking about. Just because one species of animal benefits doesn't mean a different species would, especially when you factor in the multiple types and strengths of uvb bulbs available. To illustrate this concept, a tortoise grows stronger bones if it sits under a uvb bulb every day for 8 hours, but a human spends 8 hours every day in a tanning bed (which also emits uvb!) and they get cancer. thats maybe a poor example but kinda does illustrate the gamble were taking with this in light of a lack of evidence.

While veterinary professionals may not have an established legal duty of care like medical professionals do, I still swore the oath of primum non nocere- to "first do no harm". So you can see how I'm hesitant to jump onto the bandwagon.

With relative unknowns like this one, I prefer to weigh the potential benefit against the possible risk. Im looking at what we do know, like the fact there have been thousands of house snakes produced in captivity, some decades old now, that have bred and lived long lives with no uvb exposure whatsoever. That is a large sample size folks. 

We really haven't been keeping house snakes under uvb bulbs for decades yet to really know how this plays out long term. So I perceive the benefit as -a bit undefined- but I know there is a potential for risk. So It is my choice to wait for some verifiable evidence before exposing my nocturnal snakes to this type of radiation. If you choose to do so, I would suggest to use the lowest strength available until we have enough data to conclude this has a scientifically measurable benefit, or even is safe to do long term. 

having that said, If anyone has species specific scientific data they believe would alleviate my anxiety on this practice, I am all ears- but until that day, I will not be recommending it as if it is a requirement. Im not willing to claim something is safe or required without the evidence to back it up. Im not going to pretend like I know this. I dont know either way- and I think if we were really being honest with ourselves- none of us really do.