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

Keeping / owning   Unregulated / unclear

Confidence: Medium · Last verified 2026-06-08

R. rattus is absent from the protected-species list (Permen LHK P.106/2018), so Law No. 5/1990’s poaching prohibitions do not apply, but escaping that list does NOT make it a recognized pet. It remains ‘satwa liar’ (wildlife) AND is codified as a priority invasive species (Permen LHK P.94/2016, Appendix I, entry 5) subject to state control/eradication, and a disease vector (Permenkes 50/2017). No penal clause specifically bans caging one tame specimen indoors (only the general KUHP Art. 302 animal-welfare duty applies), but there is no positive ‘pet permit’ to legitimize it, and officials retain authority to confiscate or euthanize on biosecurity grounds. A real, hostile legal vacuum, not ‘legal.’

Sources: Ministry of Environment & Forestry (KLHK), KLHK / peraturan.go.id, Ministry of Health (Kemenkes)

Breeding   Unregulated / unclear

Confidence: Medium · Last verified 2026-06-08

Permen LHK No. 18/2024 requires a business license (Perizinan Berusaha Penangkaran Jenis TSL) to breed ANY wildlife, protected or not, so commercial roof-rat breeding is covered on paper. But BKSDA cannot lawfully approve propagation of a species officially designated for eradication (P.94/2016), and Agriculture funds a national program (GERDAL OPT) to exterminate it, so the mandatory permit is effectively unobtainable. Small, intra-household hobby breeding is uncodified and de facto invisible to enforcement (hence ‘unregulated_unclear’); any attempt to scale or formalize it is blocked by the impossibility of the permit.

Sources: KLHK (Ditjen KSDAE), Ministry of Environment & Forestry (KLHK), Ministry of Agriculture (Kementan)

Selling or giving away   Restricted

Confidence: High · Last verified 2026-06-08

Commercial sale/circulation of wildlife requires a Perizinan Berusaha Peredaran Jenis TSL (Permen LHK No. 18/2024). For the roof rat that license is effectively unobtainable (an invasive species the state is bound to control), so organized commercial sale is restricted and unlawful without it. Casual, non-commercial gifting of a single animal is unmonitored in practice, but commercializing an officially listed invasive species cuts directly against federal biosecurity mandates. (Contrast: fancy rats sell openly through non-enforcement, not a legal exemption.)

Sources: KLHK (Ditjen KSDAE), Ministry of Environment & Forestry (KLHK)

Transport & import   Restricted

Confidence: High · Last verified 2026-06-08

IMPORT is flatly PROHIBITED: Permen LHK P.94/2016 Art. 4(1) bans entry of listed invasive species (‘Pemasukan jenis invasif dari luar negeri yang sudah tercantum… dilarang dan dikenakan tindakan penolakan’), and R. rattus is on Appendix I, Badan Karantina (Barantin) is mandated to reject, confiscate, or destroy a shipment at the border, regardless of captive-bred ‘pet’ status or origin health certificates. DOMESTIC inter-island movement legally requires BOTH an animal health certificate (SKKH) and a wildlife transport permit (SATS-DN from BKSDA, per Kepmenhut 447/Kpts-II/2003), but the SATS-DN is effectively unobtainable because the applicant cannot prove legal origin from a licensed breeder (none exist for this invasive species). Never release a nonnative.

Sources: Ministry of Environment & Forestry (KLHK), Republic of Indonesia (BPK), Ministry of Forestry (now KLHK)

• Do NOT attempt to import a roof rat, it will be rejected/confiscated at the port of entry.
• The only narrow theoretical exception is a scientific/research permit under P.94/2016 Art. 7 (not a pet pathway).

Where: Badan Karantina Indonesia (Barantin) / KLHK

Source: Ministry of Environment & Forestry (KLHK)

Where: Balai KSDA (BKSDA) regional office / KLHK KSDAE

Source: KLHK (Ditjen KSDAE), Ministry of Forestry (now KLHK)

Where: KLHK / Kemenkes / local Dinas

Source: Ministry of Environment & Forestry (KLHK), Ministry of Health (Kemenkes), Ministry of Agriculture (Kementan)

In Indonesia the roof rat (Rattus rattus, ‘tikus rumah’ / ‘tikus atap’ / black rat) is named as a high-priority invasive species in Appendix I of Ministry of Environment & Forestry regulation Permen LHK P.94/2016, and carries two further eradication mandates: an agricultural crop-pest designation (the GERDAL OPT control program) and a disease-vector designation (Permenkes 50/2017). The result is a hostile legal vacuum for keepers: importing a roof rat is banned at the border (P.94/2016 Art. 4(1)), no pet permit exists to legitimize keeping one, and officials retain authority to confiscate or euthanize on biosecurity grounds. This is a species classification, not a domestication problem: the fancy rat (Rattus norvegicus, ‘tikus putih’), an equally introduced, non-native congener with the same ecological profile, is sold openly across Indonesia as a pet, lab, and feeder animal. The difference is the species name on a list, not the animal’s tameness or captive lineage. The 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. Pet roof rats are captive-bred for generations, hand-tame, kept entirely indoors, and never released into the wild.

The ask: Ask the responsible ministries to recognize, in writing, a path for captive-bred, indoor-kept pet roof rats, the same de facto tolerance already extended to the pet fancy rat (R. norvegicus), and to clarify or amend how Permen LHK P.94/2016 treats a tame, captive-bred specimen kept indoors and never released. The fancy rat 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 captive-bred roof rat is the same case one species over. Cats and dogs are also non-native and documented to harm Indonesian and island wildlife, yet are permitted as pets. Whether the limited additional risk of a few sterile, tame, indoor-only roof rats, never released, is similarly outweighed by their value as companions is a cost-benefit judgment for the ministries to make. Specifically: (1) ask KSDAE for a written clarification on whether a private citizen may keep captive-bred R. rattus indoors as a pet, and whether a captive-bred carve-out or registration mechanism can be created; and (2) since the species is fixed in Appendix I by regulation, support a future revision of P.94/2016 that distinguishes wild invasive populations (which the state may control) from documented captive-bred indoor pets that pose no biosecurity risk.

Where the lever really is: Mixed, but the dominant lever is the law/list, not a bureaucrat’s misreading. The hostile status is not an agency error: KSDAE, Agriculture, and Health are each applying a binding instrument. R. rattus is written by name into Appendix I of Permen LHK P.94/2016 (entry 5), with an Art. 3(5) control/eradication mandate and an Art. 4(1) import ban; it is a crop pest under the GERDAL OPT program and a disease vector under Permenkes 50/2017. An official cannot waive a species off a regulatory list by email, and BKSDA legally cannot license breeding or transport (SATS-DN) of a species the state is bound to eradicate. Asking an agency to allow it will not work, as that asks a civil servant to ignore a regulation they are mandated to enforce. The durable fix is regulatory: a revision of P.94/2016 (a ministerial regulation amendable by KLHK, not requiring parliament) that carves out documented captive-bred, indoor-kept specimens, or a formal de-listing/parity decision. There is also an agency-clarification angle worth pursuing in parallel, because the keep/hobby-breed status is a genuine vacuum: no clause specifically criminalizes caging one tame roof rat indoors, and the fancy rat’s open pet trade shows the state already tolerates a congeneric introduced rat as a pet. The two-part approach is: (a) ask KSDAE for a written clarification on whether captive-bred indoor R. rattus may be kept, and press for parity with the fancy rat, which is useful even if it only confirms the vacuum; and (b) recognize that the durable fix is amending the regulation/list, which only KLHK (the rule-maker) can do. Indonesia has no fixed public-comment window for this, so the route is the official citizen-inquiry/aspiration channel (SP4N-LAPOR!) directed at KLHK, framed as a request to clarify and revise.

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

• SP4N-LAPOR!, National Public Aspiration & Complaint Portal (lapor.go.id) (executive / agency), official contact page
  Verified live, official ‘no wrong door’ federal portal jointly run by the Ministry of State Apparatus (PANRB), the Presidential Staff Office, and the Ombudsman. It routes a citizen inquiry or aspiration to the competent ministry (here: KLHK for the invasive-species rule; Kemenkes for the vector rule) and guarantees a tracked written response. The KSDAE site itself lists this as its public complaint channel. Best single channel for both the clarification ask (to KLHK) and the request to revise Permen LHK P.94/2016.
• KLHK, Ditjen KSDAE (Directorate General of Conservation of Natural Resources & Ecosystems) (executive / agency), official contact page
  Verified live (June 2026). The federal authority that OWNS Permen LHK P.94/2016 and the invasive-species/wildlife-utilization rules, i.e. the only body that can issue a written clarification on keeping captive-bred R. rattus and the only rule-maker that can amend Appendix I to add a captive-bred carve-out. Address the clarify-and-revise request here (and via LAPOR! for a tracked reply). Submit in Bahasa Indonesia.
• Badan Karantina Indonesia (Barantin), National Quarantine Agency (executive / agency), official contact page
  Verified live, official. The border-biosecurity authority enforcing the P.94/2016 Art. 4(1) import ban and domestic inter-area movement rules. Relevant only as a secondary touchpoint to confirm import/transport treatment of a captive-bred pet, NOT the body that can change the listing. Include only if your question is specifically about moving/importing an animal.

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 to clarify and revise the treatment of captive-bred pet roof rats (Rattus rattus)

To the Directorate General of KSDAE, Ministry of Environment & Forestry,

I am writing to ask for a written clarification and a revision of the rules. Rattus rattus is listed by name as an invasive species in Appendix I of Permen LHK P.94/2016. I support controlling wild invasive populations. The rats I am asking about are captive-bred for generations, hand-tame, kept entirely indoors in cages, and never released into the wild; they pose no biosecurity, crop, or disease risk.

The issue is the species name, not the animal itself. The fancy rat (Rattus norvegicus, 'tikus putih') is an equally introduced, non-native rat that is openly kept and sold as a pet across Indonesia. The 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, and the same tolerance should extend to it.

Cats and dogs are also non-native and documented to harm native and island wildlife, yet are permitted as pets. Whether the limited additional risk of a few sterile, tame, indoor-only roof rats, never released, is similarly outweighed by their value as companions is a judgment for the ministry to make.

I respectfully ask: (1) Please confirm in writing whether a private citizen may keep captive-bred R. rattus indoors as a pet, and whether any registration mechanism exists. (2) Please consider revising Permen LHK P.94/2016 to distinguish wild invasive populations from documented captive-bred, indoor-kept pets, creating a captive-bred carve-out.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Your name]
[Your city / contact]

Perihal: Permohonan klarifikasi dan revisi atas perlakuan terhadap tikus peliharaan hasil penangkaran (Rattus rattus)

Kepada Yth. Direktorat Jenderal KSDAE, Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan,

Saya menulis untuk memohon klarifikasi tertulis dan revisi atas peraturan. Rattus rattus tercantum secara eksplisit sebagai jenis invasif dalam Lampiran I Permen LHK P.94/2016. Saya mendukung pengendalian populasi invasif di alam liar. Tikus yang saya maksud adalah hasil penangkaran turun-temurun, jinak, dipelihara sepenuhnya di dalam rumah dalam kandang, dan tidak pernah dilepasliarkan, sehingga tidak menimbulkan risiko biosekuriti, pertanian, maupun penyakit.

Persoalannya terletak pada nama spesies, bukan pada hewannya. Tikus putih (Rattus norvegicus) adalah tikus yang sama-sama bukan asli Indonesia, namun dipelihara dan diperjualbelikan secara terbuka sebagai hewan peliharaan di seluruh Indonesia. Tikus putih itu sendiri adalah tikus cokelat liar yang baru didomestikasi pada abad ke-19, sehingga tikus atap hasil penangkaran adalah kasus yang sama, hanya berbeda satu spesies, dan toleransi yang sama sepatutnya juga berlaku baginya.

Kucing dan anjing pun bukan hewan asli Indonesia dan terdokumentasi membahayakan satwa liar asli maupun satwa di pulau-pulau, namun tetap diizinkan sebagai hewan peliharaan. Apakah tambahan risiko yang terbatas dari beberapa ekor tikus atap yang steril, jinak, dipelihara sepenuhnya di dalam rumah, dan tidak pernah dilepasliarkan, sebanding dengan manfaatnya sebagai hewan pendamping, adalah pertimbangan yang menjadi kewenangan kementerian.

Dengan hormat saya memohon: (1) Mohon konfirmasi tertulis apakah warga sipil diperbolehkan memelihara R. rattus hasil penangkaran di dalam rumah sebagai hewan peliharaan, dan apakah ada mekanisme pendaftaran. (2) Mohon dipertimbangkan revisi Permen LHK P.94/2016 untuk membedakan populasi invasif liar dari hewan peliharaan hasil penangkaran yang dipelihara di dalam rumah, dengan menciptakan pengecualian bagi hasil penangkaran.

Atas perhatian Bapak/Ibu, saya ucapkan terima kasih.

[Nama Anda]
[Kota / kontak Anda]

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