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

Keeping / owning   Restricted

Confidence: Medium · Last verified 2026-06-14

The rat-control order BEK nr 991 of 21/08/2024 (under Miljøbeskyttelsesloven, in force 1 January 2025) defines its scope as the prevention and eradication of rats and names both Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus by Latin name. Section 3 imposes a duty on every person (‘Enhver, der konstaterer forekomst af rotter, skal straks anmelde dette til kommunalbestyrelsen’ – anyone who observes the occurrence of rats must immediately report this to the municipal council), and the municipality must investigate and eradicate. There is no written carve-out for a captive specimen. The Danish Mammal Society (Dansk Pattedyrforening) states the house rat ‘er ligesom den brune rotte medtaget i lovgivningen vedrørende bekæmpelse af rotter’ and ‘den må derfor bekæmpes alle steder, hvor den forekommer’ (is covered by rat-control legislation like the brown rat, and must therefore be combated everywhere it occurs). The separate forbidden-exotic order BEK nr 1261 of 17/11/2015 does NOT list Rattus (the rodent annex bans beavers, flying squirrels and porcupines, not Muridae), so the restriction stems from rat-control law, not an exotic ban. Confidence is medium because no published guidance or enforcement ruling resolves whether a securely caged pet on private premises is itself a reportable ‘forekomst,’ and the fancy rat (R. norvegicus), named in the identical order, is kept freely by tacit tolerance.

Sources: Miljø- og Ligestillingsministeriet (Retsinformation), Miljøstyrelsen (Danish EPA), Miljø- og Fødevareministeriet / Fødevarestyrelsen, Dansk Pattedyrforening (Danish Mammal Society), Dansk Pattedyratlas / Lex (Den Store Danske)

Breeding   Restricted

Confidence: Medium · Last verified 2026-06-14

Breeding compounds the keeping problem: if a single specimen triggers the rat-control report-and-eradicate duty, multiple specimens, nests and litters squarely meet the definition of a rat occurrence and would, on a textual reading, oblige municipal intervention; the property-owner duty under § 4 (and Miljøbeskyttelsesloven § 17) to limit rats’ living conditions cuts directly against deliberately housing and propagating them. Hobby breeding of the domesticated tamrotte (R. norvegicus) needs no agricultural permit, but for R. rattus the species-level rat-control status is the binding constraint. Commercial breeding or selling of any animal requires a Fødevarestyrelsen authorisation under the commercial-trade order (BEK nr 686 of 31/05/2023), whose application requires species counts, enclosure plans and trained staff; a permit to propagate a species the state is mandated to eradicate is, in practice, a non-starter.

Sources: Miljø- og Ligestillingsministeriet (Retsinformation), Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri / Fødevarestyrelsen, Dansk Pattedyrforening (Danish Mammal Society)

Selling or giving away   Restricted

Confidence: Medium · Last verified 2026-06-14

Transferring a live R. rattus, whether by sale or free gift, introduces a rat-control-regulated species onto another person’s premises, where the recipient becomes subject to the § 3 report duty the moment they take possession; the same rat-control conflict applies regardless of whether money changes hands. Commercial sale carries an additional layer: trading animals commercially requires a Fødevarestyrelsen authorisation under BEK nr 686 of 31/05/2023, which it is highly improbable would be granted to formalise trade in a species under a national eradication mandate. The Danish pet-rat scene (e.g. Den Danske Tamrotteforening) is built entirely around R. norvegicus; R. rattus is practically unavailable in the trade.

Sources: Miljø- og Ligestillingsministeriet (Retsinformation), Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri / Fødevarestyrelsen, Den Danske Tamrotteforening

Transport & import   Restricted

Confidence: Low · Last verified 2026-06-14

Internal transport in a private vehicle needs no specific transit permit, but the underlying rat-control constraint travels with the animal: on arrival the destination premises host a ‘forekomst,’ triggering the § 3 report duty, and an escape or release would introduce a destructive non-native species into the wild. For movement into Denmark from another EU state, EU pet-travel harmonisation (Reg. 2016/429, Animal Health Law) standardises only dogs, cats and ferrets; for ‘other animals’ including rodents the Fødevarestyrelsen travel guidance says national rules apply, and no specific inbound health-certificate rule for pet rodents was found. Because keeping is restricted, the rat-control restriction attaches the moment the animal enters Denmark, which makes lawful transport precarious. No permit pathway was identified. Status is reclassified from the preliminary ‘unregulated_unclear’ to ‘restricted’ because transport is governed by the same binding rat-control constraint that restricts keeping, not because a distinct transport rule bars it. Never release.

Sources: Miljø- og Ligestillingsministeriet (Retsinformation), Fødevarestyrelsen, EU / EUR-Lex

• Ask Miljøstyrelsen in writing whether an individually caged, captive-bred R. rattus is a reportable ‘forekomst’ under BEK nr 991 of 21/08/2024, or whether the report/eradicate duty reaches only free-living rats.
• Ask whether Miljøstyrelsen offers a dispensation, or recognises a customary tolerance for a domesticated roof rat equivalent to the one the fancy rat (tamrotte) already enjoys.
• Cross-check with Fødevarestyrelsen that the forbidden-exotic order (BEK nr 1261 of 17/11/2015) does not cover R. rattus and that the only bar is the rat-control law.

Where: Miljøstyrelsen (rat control) as primary; Fødevarestyrelsen (exotic-pet / import) as cross-check.

Source: Miljø- og Ligestillingsministeriet (Retsinformation), Miljø- og Fødevareministeriet / Fødevarestyrelsen

In Denmark the roof rat (Rattus rattus) is not on the forbidden-exotic-pets list, so there is no exotic-permit ban. The obstacle is the rat-control order (Bekendtgørelse om forebyggelse og bekæmpelse af rotter, BEK nr 991 of 21 August 2024, in force 1 January 2025, issued under the Environmental Protection Act / Miljøbeskyttelsesloven), which names BOTH the brown rat (Rattus norvegicus) AND the roof rat (Rattus rattus) by Latin name in its scope. Section 3 makes it every person’s duty to report any ‘occurrence’ (forekomst) of these rats to the municipality, and the municipality’s duty to investigate and eradicate them. The order contains no written exemption for a captive-bred, caged pet. Because the order targets the species, not wild behaviour, a tame indoor roof rat reads as caught by the same rule that targets pest infestations. No published guidance has resolved whether a single caged pet triggers the report-and-destroy duty. The brown rat (the fancy rat or tamrotte) is named in the same order yet is kept freely as a pet across Denmark; the roof rat is treated differently by reputation, not by any difference in the rule’s wording. The already-permitted fancy rat is itself the wild brown rat, domesticated only in the 19th century, so a captive-bred roof rat is the same case one species over.

The ask: Request one of two clarifications from Miljøstyrelsen (the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, which authors the rat-control order): (1) a written ruling or published guidance note stating that an individually captive-bred Rattus rattus kept in a secure cage indoors is not a reportable ‘forekomst’ under the rat-control order, so the report-and-eradicate duty reaches only free-living rat populations, not a contained pet; or (2) at the next revision of the order, a captive-pet carve-out exempting securely housed, captive-bred pet specimens, matching the practical treatment the brown rat (fancy rat) already receives under the identical wording. The order is aimed at the public-health and nuisance risk of free-living rat colonies, and that cost-benefit judgment is Denmark’s to make. Cats and dogs are also non-native and documented to harm Danish wildlife, yet are permitted as pets. Whether the limited additional risk of a few tame, indoor-only roof rats, bred for generations in captivity and never released, is similarly outweighed by their value as companions is a judgment for the agency to make, not a conclusion for the keeper to assert. The species-level wording, with no pet carve-out, may be a drafting oversight worth flagging to the Folketing’s Environment and Food Committee, since neighbouring countries (Netherlands, Sweden) allow roof-rat pets without this conflict.

Where the lever really is: This is principally a law-as-written problem with an agency-rulemaking lever: a hybrid, but the controlling fact is that the species sits in the scope clause of a ministerial order. The roof rat (Rattus rattus) is named by Latin name in the rat-control order (BEK nr 991 of 21 August 2024, under Miljøbeskyttelsesloven). The municipal eradication duty and the citizen report duty flow directly from that wording, so an enforcing municipality or the agency applies the rule correctly when it treats a roof rat as in scope. Appealing for mercy or arguing ‘you are misreading the law’ will not work, because the text says what it says. The lever is to change or clarify the text. In Denmark the rat-control order is a ministerial bekendtgørelse drafted and administered by Miljøstyrelsen, not primary legislation passed line by line by the Folketing, so the agency itself can fix it, either by a published scope clarification (confirming a caged pet is not a ‘forekomst’) or by adding a captive-pet exemption at the next revision. That makes Miljøstyrelsen the primary, legitimate target even though this is a ‘law on a list’ case. The one genuinely open agency-interpretation angle is the unresolved definitional question of whether a contained pet is a ‘forekomst’ at all, which is a clarification request, not a plea against correct enforcement. The Folketing’s Environment and Food Committee is the legislative backstop if the agency declines to amend or clarify its own order. A single municipal caseworker is unlikely to grant a personal exemption to a written rule on the spot; the fix is a guidance note or a rule amendment, which is a policy step, not frontline discretion.

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

• Miljøstyrelsen (Danish Environmental Protection Agency), rat-control / Rottebekæmpelse (executive / agency), mst@mst.dk
  Miljøstyrelsen drafts and administers the rat-control order (BEK nr 991 of 21 August 2024) that names Rattus rattus by Latin name, so it is the body that can either publish a scope clarification (a caged pet is not a reportable ‘forekomst’) or add a captive-pet exemption at the next revision. This is the primary, correct target for both the clarification ask and the rule-amendment ask. The general agency inbox mst@mst.dk and the official contact page are the verified channels; ask to be routed to the rat-control unit (rottebekæmpelse). Inquiry can be in Danish or English.
• Folketinget, Miljø- og Fødevareudvalget (Environment and Food Committee) (legislature), official contact page
  Legislative backstop. If Miljøstyrelsen declines to amend or clarify its own order, the Folketing’s Environment and Food Committee is the channel that can press the Minister to add a captive-pet carve-out at revision. Use this only as escalation, and contact the committee via its official page, never an individual member by name.
• Fødevarestyrelsen (Danish Veterinary and Food Administration) (executive / agency), official contact page
  Secondary cross-check. The roof rat is NOT on Fødevarestyrelsen’s forbidden-exotic list (BEK nr 1261 of 17 November 2015; the genus Rattus and family Muridae are absent from the rodent annex), so this agency can confirm in writing that the exotic-pet regime poses no bar, pinning the issue squarely on the rat-control order and strengthening the case put to Miljøstyrelsen. Useful for documenting that no exotic-permit pathway is even required, and for import questions (rodents are non-harmonised pets, so national rules apply).

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

Subject: Request for clarification / captive-pet exemption for Rattus rattus under the rat-control order (BEK nr 991 of 21 August 2024)

Dear Miljøstyrelsen,

I am writing about the keeping of captive-bred roof rats (Rattus rattus) as pets. The rat-control order names this species alongside the brown rat (Rattus norvegicus) but contains no written exemption for a tame, captive-bred animal kept in a secure cage.

The animals I am asking about are bred in captivity, hand-tame, kept permanently indoors in a closed enclosure, and never released. They pose none of the public-health risks the order is designed to address. This is the same case as the brown rat (the fancy rat / tamrotte), which is named in the same order yet is kept freely as a pet throughout Denmark. The fancy rat is itself the wild brown rat, domesticated in the 19th century, so a captive-bred roof rat is the same case one species over.

The order is aimed at free-living rat colonies, and weighing their risk against any public benefit is Denmark's call to make. Cats and dogs are also non-native and documented to harm native wildlife, yet are permitted as pets. Whether the limited additional risk of a few tame, indoor-only roof rats is meaningfully greater is the narrow question I ask you to weigh. I do not ask you to reach any particular conclusion.

I respectfully request either: (1) written confirmation that an individually caged, captive-bred Rattus rattus is not a reportable 'forekomst' under the order; or (2) a captive-pet exemption at the next revision, matching the practical treatment the brown rat already receives.

Thank you for your consideration. I would be grateful for a written reply.

Kind regards,
[Your name]
[Your town/region, if you wish]

Emne: Anmodning om afklaring / undtagelse for kæledyr vedrørende Rattus rattus efter rottebekendtgørelsen (BEK nr 991 af 21. august 2024)

Kære Miljøstyrelse

Jeg skriver vedrørende hold af opdrættede husrotter (Rattus rattus) som kæledyr. Rottebekendtgørelsen nævner denne art sammen med den brune rotte (Rattus norvegicus), men indeholder ingen skriftlig undtagelse for et tamt, i fangenskab opdrættet dyr, der holdes i et sikkert bur.

De dyr, jeg spørger om, er opdrættet i fangenskab, håndtamme, holdes permanent indendørs i en lukket indhegning og sættes aldrig ud i naturen. De udgør ingen af de sundhedsrisici, som bekendtgørelsen skal imødegå. Det er samme tilfælde som den brune rotte (tamrotten), der er nævnt i samme bekendtgørelse, men holdes frit som kæledyr i hele Danmark. Tamrotten er selv den vilde brune rotte, domesticeret i 1800-tallet, så en i fangenskab opdrættet husrotte er samme tilfælde én art ved siden af.

Bekendtgørelsen retter sig mod frit levende rottebestande, og det er Danmarks egen afvejning at vurdere deres risiko over for en eventuel samfundsmæssig nytte. Katte og hunde er også ikke-hjemmehørende og dokumenteret at skade den hjemmehørende natur, men tillades som kæledyr. Om den begrænsede ekstra risiko ved nogle få tamme husrotter, der udelukkende holdes indendørs, reelt er større, er det snævre spørgsmål, jeg beder Dem afveje. Jeg beder Dem ikke om at nå frem til en bestemt konklusion.

Jeg anmoder respektfuldt om enten: (1) en skriftlig bekræftelse af, at en individuelt indburet, i fangenskab opdrættet Rattus rattus ikke udgør en anmeldelsespligtig 'forekomst' efter bekendtgørelsen; eller (2) en undtagelse for kæledyr ved næste revision, svarende til den praktiske behandling, den brune rotte allerede får.

Tak for jeres overvejelse. Jeg vil være taknemmelig for et skriftligt svar.

Med venlig hilsen
[Dit navn]
[Din by/region, hvis du ønsker det]

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