Are Roof Rats Legal in Argentina? Keeping, Breeding & Selling

• Dirección Nacional de Biodiversidad (rpuofs@jefatura.gob.ar), written reply 2026-06-11: ‘Esta Dirección de Biodiversidad interviene solamente animales silvestres. Por la tenencia de un animal doméstico, consulte ante la autoridad jurisdiccional correspondiente al lugar donde se encuentre el ejemplar.’ (This Biodiversity Directorate only intervenes for WILD animals; for the possession of a DOMESTIC animal, consult the provincial/jurisdictional authority where the specimen is located.), the federal wildlife authority disclaims jurisdiction over the keeping (tenencia) of a domestic specimen, confirming that possession of a kept R. rattus is a provincial matter rather than a federal wild-fauna question.

Keeping / owning   Unregulated / unclear

Confidence: Medium · Last verified 2026-06-10

Art. 5 of Resolución 109/2021 enumerates the banned activities for EEI-1 species, cría, compra/venta, donación, liberación, introducción al territorio nacional, and movimiento interjurisdiccional, but conspicuously omits ‘tenencia’ (passive private possession). Under the constitutional legality principle (Const. Nacional Art. 19: no inhabitant may be deprived of what the law does not forbid), merely keeping a pre-existing captive-bred R. rattus indoors is not an enumerated federal offense, so federal authorities have no Art. 5 mandate to confiscate it. This is a jurisprudential gap, not an affirmative protected right: provinces and municipalities retain the police power to enact stricter local bans on keeping invasive rodents, and federal silence does not equal permission. Treat as unregulated/unclear, neither expressly authorized nor expressly prohibited.

Sources: Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (vía Infoleg), Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (vía Infoleg), Honorable Congreso de la Nación Argentina (vía Infoleg), Constitución de la Nación Argentina (vía Infoleg), Sistema de Información de Biodiversidad / APN

Breeding   Prohibited

Confidence: High · Last verified 2026-06-10

Art. 5 of Resolución 109/2021 expressly prohibits ‘su cría o cultivo’ for EEI-1 species in places under national jurisdiction, with no hobbyist or small-breeder threshold. Because R. rattus is EEI-1, the Dirección Nacional de Biodiversidad is legally stripped of authority to grant any breeding license, and the Art. 5 ban preempts the fauna-operator registry (RPUOFS, Res. 170/2021), so even a fully compliant criadero application would be administratively dead on arrival. There is no lawful private or commercial pathway to breed the species; any breeding is treated as an illicit act of wildlife trafficking. (By contrast, R. norvegicus is bred openly under a de-facto domestication exemption that R. rattus does not share.)

Sources: Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (vía Infoleg), Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (vía Infoleg), Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (vía Infoleg), Honorable Congreso de la Nación Argentina (vía Infoleg)

Selling or giving away   Prohibited

Confidence: High · Last verified 2026-06-10

Art. 5 of Resolución 109/2021 expressly prohibits ‘compra y venta, donación’ of EEI-1 species, covering both sale and non-commercial gifting/donation. There is no lawful avenue to commercialize or transfer R. rattus: the Art. 5 ban preempts the fauna-operator registry (Res. 170/2021), so no dealer/criadero license can issue, and even gifting is enumerated as a banned act. This forecloses any private give-away as well as commercial sale. (R. norvegicus is sold openly only because of an uncodified de-facto domestication exemption that R. rattus does not formally enjoy.)

Sources: Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (vía Infoleg), Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (vía Infoleg), Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (vía Infoleg), Honorable Congreso de la Nación Argentina (vía Infoleg)

Transport & import   Prohibited

Confidence: High · Last verified 2026-06-10

Art. 5 of Resolución 109/2021 imposes a blanket ban on ‘la introducción al territorio nacional y el movimiento interjurisdiccional’ of EEI-1 species, so both importing R. rattus and moving it across provincial lines are prohibited. On import, the SENASA sanitary pathway (CVI, TAD, SIGTrámites) is entirely subordinate to the environmental veto: the Dirección Nacional de Biodiversidad must authorize a wildlife import first (Decreto 666/1997 Art. 22 empowers it to reject ecologically harmful imports), and for an EEI-1 species it is obligated to refuse, so SENASA can never issue the final entry permit. Internally, provincial fauna authorities cannot issue a transit guide (guía de tránsito) for a federally restricted EEI-1 species for personal relocation, leaving the animal legally trapped in its current province. No lawful transport pathway exists. (Intra-provincial movement within a single jurisdiction is not reached by the inter-jurisdictional ban, but the keep status governs there.)

Sources: Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (vía Infoleg), Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (vía Infoleg), Poder Ejecutivo Nacional (Argentina.gob.ar), SENASA (Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria), Honorable Congreso de la Nación Argentina (vía Infoleg)

• Do NOT breed, sell, give away, import, or move R. rattus across provincial lines, these are banned for EEI-1 species (Res. 109/2021 Art. 5)
• Never release a roof rat into the environment (liberación is expressly prohibited)
• If advocating: ask the Dirección Nacional de Biodiversidad for a written clarification on tenencia and a possible Art. 6 exception extending R. norvegicus-style domestic treatment to captive-bred R. rattus

Where: Dirección Nacional de Biodiversidad (Subsecretaría de Ambiente) for clarifications/exceptions; SENASA for import questions; provincial fauna authority for transit

Source: Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (vía Infoleg), Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (vía Infoleg), Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (vía Infoleg), Poder Ejecutivo Nacional (Argentina.gob.ar)

In Argentina the roof rat (Rattus rattus) is listed as a Category 1 Invasive Exotic Species (EEI-1) under Resolución 109/2021. Article 5 of that resolution bans the breeding, sale, donation, release, import, and inter-jurisdictional movement of EEI-1 species. Because the species is EEI-1, the Dirección Nacional de Biodiversidad has no authority to issue a breeder/operator license for it, so the otherwise-available fauna-operator registry (Res. 170/2021) is foreclosed. The common fancy rat (Rattus norvegicus) carries the identical EEI-1 listing, yet it is bred, transported, and sold openly nationwide because authorities treat its laboratory and fancy strains as domestic animals (animales domésticos) outside the wildlife regime. The fancy rat is itself the wild brown rat, domesticated only in the 19th century; R. rattus never received the same institutional recognition, so a tame, captive-bred roof rat is subject to the full invasive-wildlife prohibitions on the basis of its species name. Separately, private possession (‘tenencia’) is absent from the Art. 5 ban list, leaving an owner in a gray zone: not prosecuted for keeping the animal, but unable to lawfully breed, give, sell, or move it.

The ask: Ask the Dirección Nacional de Biodiversidad to confirm in writing (a) that passive private possession of a pre-existing captive-bred Rattus rattus, kept indoors and never released, is not among the activities banned by Art. 5 of Resolución 109/2021; and (b) whether a formal regulatory exception exists or can be granted, via Art. 6 of Res. 109/2021, an internal dictamen, or administrative jurisprudence, that extends to captive-bred, closed-colony R. rattus the same de-facto domestic-animal treatment already afforded to R. norvegicus, so that documented captive-bred specimens fall outside the EEI-1 commercialization and transport prohibitions. Domestication, not wild ancestry, is what makes an animal a domestic companion: the dog descends from the wolf and the cat from a wild felid, yet both are recognized as domestic. The fancy rat (R. norvegicus) is itself the wild brown rat, domesticated only in the 19th century (see https://blonderoofrat.com/how-the-sewer-rat-became-the-fancy-rat/), so a multi-generation captive-bred R. rattus is domesticated on identical terms, one species over. The question is whether the agency will extend to R. rattus the domestic recognition it already applies to its near-twin. For anyone importing, ask SENASA whether an EEI-1-classified companion rodent is automatically rejected in the TAD system, or whether a Certificado Veterinario Internacional can be processed for a non-commercial captive-bred specimen with a biosecurity plan.

Where the lever really is: Lever: the agency (Dirección Nacional de Biodiversidad), not the legislature. No statute names or bans R. rattus by species; the prohibition flows from an administrative classification (EEI-1 under Resolución 109/2021, a Ministerio de Ambiente resolution) and its Art. 5 operative ban. Because the barrier is the agency’s own classification and the absence of a formal domestication/captive-bred exception, the fix is administrative: Art. 6 of Res. 109/2021 contemplates regulated exceptions, and the directorate already exercises de-facto interpretive discretion by treating R. norvegicus as domestic. There is no hostile statute to repeal and nothing to take to Congress. Federal-vs-provincial dimension: the federal government controls inter-provincial commerce, imports, and the EEI list, but the police power over the contents of a private home falls to provinces and municipalities, so even a favorable national clarification on tenencia would not bind a province that enacts a stricter local ban. This is a federal-first ask whose protection is reinforced, not replaced, by keeping breeder and captive-origin paperwork.

Where to send it (more than one channel helps):

• Dirección Nacional de Biodiversidad (Subsecretaría de Ambiente, Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible) (executive / agency), rpuofs@jefatura.gob.ar
  The national environmental Application Authority that maintains the EEI list (Res. 109/2021), enforces the Art. 5 prohibitions, runs the fauna-operator registry (RPUOFS, Res. 170/2021), and holds the pre-import authorization power over wildlife. It is the only office that can issue a written clarification on tenencia and grant or interpret an Art. 6 exception extending captive-bred R. rattus the de-facto domestic treatment already given to R. norvegicus. rpuofs@ambiente.gob.ar is the directorate’s wildlife-operator inbox; mesadeentradas@ambiente.gob.ar is the general entry desk. [Updated 2026-06-11: contact via rpuofs@jefatura.gob.ar after the directorate’s 2026-04-01 migration from @ambiente.gob.ar; mesadeentradas@ambiente.gob.ar is dead (hard-bounce).]
• SENASA, Dirección de Comercio Exterior Animal (Mascotas No Tradicionales) (executive / agency), responde@senasa.gob.ar
  The national animal-health service that runs the import protocol for non-traditional pets (CVI, SIGTrámites/TAD). Sanitary clearance is subordinate to the environmental veto, so SENASA is the right office to ask whether an EEI-1 companion rodent is auto-rejected in TAD or whether a CVI can be processed for a non-commercial captive-bred specimen. responde@senasa.gob.ar is the confirmed general inbox; dcea@senasa.gob.ar reaches the foreign-animal-trade directorate.

A starting-point message, please put it in your own words; a short personal note carries far more weight than an identical form letter:

To the Dirección Nacional de Biodiversidad (Subsecretaría de Ambiente):

I am writing regarding the regulatory status of the roof rat (Rattus rattus) kept as an indoor companion animal. The species is listed as a Category 1 Invasive Exotic Species (EEI-1) under Resolución 109/2021, and Article 5 prohibits its breeding, sale, donation, release, import, and inter-jurisdictional movement.

I have two questions.

First, on possession (tenencia): Article 5 enumerates the banned activities but does not include passive private possession. Could you confirm in writing that keeping a pre-existing, captive-bred R. rattus indoors, never released into the environment, is not among the activities prohibited by Article 5?

Second, on parity with the fancy rat: Rattus norvegicus carries the identical EEI-1 listing, yet its captive-bred laboratory and fancy strains are bred, transported, and sold openly nationwide because they are treated in practice as domestic animals (animales domésticos) outside the wildlife regime. Domestication, not wild ancestry, is what makes an animal a domestic companion: the dog descends from the wolf and the cat from a wild felid, yet both are recognized as domestic. The fancy rat is itself the wild brown rat, domesticated only in the 19th century. A captive-bred R. rattus is, in every practical husbandry sense, indistinguishable from the fancy rat and equally non-releasable, domesticated on identical terms. Does any formal regulatory exception exist, via Article 6 of Resolución 109/2021, an internal dictamen, or administrative jurisprudence, that could extend to documented, closed-colony, captive-bred R. rattus the same domestic-animal treatment already afforded de facto to R. norvegicus, so that such specimens fall outside the EEI-1 commercialization and transport prohibitions?

I am asking to understand the regulatory framework and to keep any animal lawfully. Thank you for your time and guidance.

[Your name]
[Your contact details]

A la Dirección Nacional de Biodiversidad (Subsecretaría de Ambiente):

Me dirijo a ustedes respecto de la situación regulatoria de la rata de techo (Rattus rattus) tenida como animal de compañía dentro del hogar. La especie está clasificada como Especie Exótica Invasora Categoría 1 (EEI-1) en el Anexo I de la Resolución 109/2021, y su Artículo 5 prohíbe su cría, compra y venta, donación, liberación, introducción al territorio nacional y movimiento interjurisdiccional.

Formulo dos consultas.

Primero, sobre la tenencia: el Artículo 5 enumera las actividades prohibidas pero no incluye la tenencia particular pasiva. ¿Podrían confirmarme por escrito que la tenencia de un ejemplar de R. rattus ya existente, nacido en cautiverio y mantenido íntegramente dentro de la vivienda, sin liberación al ambiente, no se encuentra entre las actividades prohibidas por el Artículo 5?

Segundo, sobre la paridad con la rata doméstica común: Rattus norvegicus figura con idéntica clasificación EEI-1, y sin embargo sus cepas de laboratorio y domésticas criadas en cautiverio se crían, transportan y venden abiertamente en todo el país porque en la práctica se las trata como animales domésticos fuera del régimen de fauna silvestre. La domesticación, y no el origen silvestre, es lo que hace de un animal un animal de compañía doméstico: el perro desciende del lobo y el gato de un félido silvestre, y aun así ambos son reconocidos como animales domésticos. La rata 'fancy' es la propia rata parda silvestre, domesticada apenas en el siglo XIX. Un ejemplar de R. rattus nacido y criado en cautiverio es, en todo sentido práctico de manejo, indistinguible de la rata 'fancy' e igualmente no liberable, domesticado en idénticos términos. ¿Existe alguna excepción reglamentaria formal, vía Artículo 6 de la Resolución 109/2021, un dictamen interno o jurisprudencia administrativa, que pueda extender a los ejemplares documentados de R. rattus, de colonia cerrada y criados en cautiverio, el mismo tratamiento de 'animal doméstico' que de hecho ya se otorga a R. norvegicus, de modo que tales ejemplares queden fuera de las prohibiciones de comercialización y transporte propias de la categoría EEI-1?

Mi consulta tiene por fin comprender el marco regulatorio y poder tener cualquier animal de manera lícita. Agradezco su tiempo y orientación.

[Su nombre]
[Sus datos de contacto]

Did you take action, or get a response? Tell us, it helps the next person, and we track what actually works.