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

Keeping / owning   Legal with a permit

Confidence: Medium · Last verified 2026-06-11

R. rattus is on the 2016 invasive-species Acuerdo (DOF 07/12/2016), so it is ‘vida silvestre exótica invasora’ regardless of domestication, and the simple pet authorization is foreclosed: RLGVS Art. 2 expressly excludes invasive species from the legal definition of ‘mascota,’ barring trámite SEMARNAT-08-056 for this species. The one lawful pathway to keep one is to register the premises as a wildlife-management facility (PIMVS) under LGVS Art. 78 Bis (trámite SEMARNAT-08-045) with a SEMARNAT-approved Plan de Manejo and a certified Responsable Técnico, a heavy, facility-grade authorization rather than an ordinary pet permit. A pathway therefore exists (not prohibited), but it eliminates ordinary hobbyist keeping; PROFEPA enforces (LGVS Art. 122).

Sources: Cámara de Diputados / DOF, DOF / SEMARNAT (via FAOLEX), Diario Oficial de la Federación / SEMARNAT, gob.mx / SEMARNAT, gob.mx / SEMARNAT

Breeding   Legal with a permit

Confidence: Medium · Last verified 2026-06-11

Because R. rattus cannot be a ‘mascota,’ any captive breeding must occur inside a registered PIMVS (LGVS Art. 78 Bis) operating under a SEMARNAT-approved Plan de Manejo that details containment, veterinary care, reproductive control, and contingency protocols. To then sell offspring, the PIMVS must also obtain an aprovechamiento (harvest/utilization) authorization (trámites SEMARNAT-08-032 / 08-034) setting a legal quota. There is no hobbyist or small-breeder exemption, one litter triggers the same PIMVS + Plan de Manejo obligation as a commercial farm, but the pathway exists, so breeding is legal with permit (the DR labels it ‘Legal with a permit/license’). Breeding without a registered PIMVS is an LGVS violation (confiscation, closure, Art. 122 fines).

Sources: Cámara de Diputados / DOF, DOF / SEMARNAT (via FAOLEX), gob.mx / SEMARNAT, gob.mx / SEMARNAT

Selling or giving away   Restricted

Confidence: Medium · Last verified 2026-06-11

Any transfer of a listed exotic, sale or gift alike, is governed by the doctrine of legal provenance (Legal Procedencia, LGVS Art. 51): the transferor (who must operate a registered PIMVS) must hand the recipient documentation (factura/nota de remisión) citing the SEMARNAT aprovechamiento authorization number, and the recipient must themselves hold legal facilities (their own PIMVS) to lawfully receive an invasive exotic. This creates a closed chain of custody that confines lawful transfer to a network of registered facilities; transfer without provenance is treated as illicit-origin contraband and is heavily sanctioned by PROFEPA (Art. 122). A papered pathway exists, but the constraint runs through the entire chain → restricted. (In practice R. norvegicus changes hands openly without SEMARNAT docs, de-facto tolerance, but R. rattus draws scrutiny.)

Sources: Cámara de Diputados / DOF, DOF / SEMARNAT (via FAOLEX), PROFEPA

Transport & import   Restricted

Confidence: High · Last verified 2026-06-11

Internal movement of a lawfully-held R. rattus is restricted but lawful: there is no separate domestic-transport permit, but the original legal-provenance documentation (the PIMVS invoice/authorization letter) must accompany the animal at all times to survive a PROFEPA/highway inspection, and release into the wild is prohibited (LGVS Art. 27 Bis). Cross-border IMPORT, by contrast, is categorically PROHIBITED: LGVS Art. 27 Bis 1 forbids authorizing the import of any listed invasive species, so SEMARNAT/DGVS is statutorily stripped of authority to issue an import permit (trámite SEMARNAT-08-009) for R. rattus, even a captive-bred animal meeting every SENASICA zoosanitary requirement (health certificate, parasite treatment) cannot lawfully cross, because the environmental clearance cannot be granted. Not CITES-listed. Overall status restricted because a lawful internal-transport pathway exists; the import leg specifically has no lawful pathway (see notes).

Sources: Cámara de Diputados / DOF, SENASICA, gob.mx / SEMARNAT

• File trámite SEMARNAT-08-045 (Conservación de vida silvestre fuera de su hábitat natural, PIMVS registration), form FF-SEMARNAT-020
• Submit a technical Plan de Manejo prepared by a certified Responsable Técnico (containment, veterinary, reproductive, contingency, final-disposition)
• To sell offspring, additionally obtain an aprovechamiento authorization (trámite SEMARNAT-08-032 / 08-034) setting a legal quota
• Keep legal-provenance documentation for every specimen on site for PROFEPA inspection

Forms: SEMARNAT-08-045, Conservación de la vida silvestre fuera de su hábitat natural (PIMVS; form FF-SEMARNAT-020), SEMARNAT-08-056, Autorización de ejemplares exóticos como mascota (NOTE: foreclosed for invasive-listed species per RLGVS Art. 2) · Where: SEMARNAT, Dirección General de Vida Silvestre (DGVS), Espacio de Contacto Ciudadano, Av. Ejército Nacional 223, Col. Anáhuac, Miguel Hidalgo, C.P. 11320, Ciudad de México (or regional federal delegations) · Fees: PIMVS registration ~$686 MXN (indicative; varies per the annual Ley Federal de Derechos). SEMARNAT-08-056 would be free but is unavailable for this species.

Source: Cámara de Diputados / DOF, DOF / SEMARNAT (via FAOLEX), gob.mx / SEMARNAT, gob.mx / SEMARNAT

• Obtain/keep the legal-provenance document (factura or PIMVS authorization letter citing the SEMARNAT authorization number)
• Carry the provenance documentation with the animal during any internal transport
• Transfer only to a recipient who holds their own PIMVS / legal facilities
• Never release into the wild (LGVS Art. 27 Bis)

Where: SEMARNAT, Dirección General de Vida Silvestre (DGVS); enforcement by PROFEPA

Source: Cámara de Diputados / DOF, PROFEPA

Source: Cámara de Diputados / DOF, SENASICA, gob.mx / SEMARNAT

In Mexico, keeping a pet roof rat (Rattus rattus) is governed by federal wildlife law, not ordinary pet law. The roof rat is on Mexico’s official invasive-species list (Acuerdo, DOF 7 December 2016), alongside the common fancy rat. Under the General Wildlife Law (LGVS) a listed species is ‘vida silvestre exótica invasora’ regardless of how tame it is or how many generations it has been bred in captivity. Mexican law does not recognize a domesticated roof rat as anything other than wildlife. The Reglamento (RLGVS, Article 2) defines a ‘pet’ (mascota) but expressly excludes invasive exotic species from that definition. The simple, free pet authorization that otherwise lets a citizen keep an exotic companion animal (trámite SEMARNAT-08-056) is therefore unavailable for a roof rat. The only remaining lawful way to keep or breed one is to register the home as a formal wildlife-management facility (a PIMVS under Article 78 Bis, trámite SEMARNAT-08-045) with a technical Management Plan (Plan de Manejo), containment engineering, and a certified technical expert. That regime is designed for zoos, laboratories, and commercial breeders, not pet owners. The fancy rat (Rattus norvegicus) is on the same 2016 invasive list yet is sold openly in chain pet stores and online with no SEMARNAT paperwork, on the basis of its long commercial history. The roof rat, kept the same way (captive-bred, tame, indoors, never released), is subject to the full wildlife code. 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. This is a species classification, not a finding that domesticated roof rats are dangerous.

The ask: Ask SEMARNAT’s Dirección General de Vida Silvestre (DGVS), with CONABIO’s invasive-species program informing the science, to create a written regulatory pathway for closed, captive-bred populations of Rattus rattus that does not require a full PIMVS. Specifically: amend or interpret RLGVS Article 2 so domesticated, closed-colony (non-release) strains are not caught by the invasive ‘mascota’ exclusion, or publish a declaratory criterion that such animals may obtain a SEMARNAT-08-056-type authorization under simple closed-colony conditions, treating R. rattus the same as the already-tolerated R. norvegicus. The listing exists to prevent release into the wild, and a fully captive-bred, indoor, closed colony poses no release risk, so an authorization pathway is the science-consistent reading. Cats and dogs are also non-native introduced species documented to harm native wildlife, yet are permitted as pets. Whether the limited additional risk of a sterilized or reproductively controlled, indoor-only roof rat from a closed colony is similarly outweighed by its companionship and educational value is a judgment for SEMARNAT to make. Where a facility figure is genuinely needed for larger breeders, ask DGVS to confirm the lightest applicable trámite and whether a Plan de Manejo and Responsable Técnico can be scaled to a small closed colony.

Where the lever really is: Primary lever: the federal agency (SEMARNAT/DGVS), with CONABIO/CONANP input on the species listing. Not the legislature, and not a state matter (wildlife regulation in Mexico is federal and centralized). The barrier is regulatory and the agency owns it: the ‘mascota’ exclusion is in RLGVS Article 2 (a SEMARNAT-issued regulation), the invasive listing is a SEMARNAT Acuerdo (DOF 07/12/2016) built on CONABIO risk assessments, and the PIMVS / Plan de Manejo machinery (Arts. 78 Bis, 51) is administered by DGVS. The action is to ask DGVS for a regulatory clarification or amendment carving out closed captive-bred strains, and to engage CONABIO on whether domesticated closed lines warrant the same risk treatment as feral populations. The parity point is factual: the already-permitted 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 captive-bred R. rattus is the same case one species over. Secondary / watch: the legislature. A ‘listado positivo’ / tighten-the-mascota-definition reform of the LGVS has circulated in the Cámara de Diputados (e.g., the 2024 iniciativa on a positive list of permitted species); such a bill could entrench the invasive-species exclusion or be amended to preserve an authorization pathway for domesticated closed strains, so it is worth watching. There is no live federal public-comment or rulemaking window open for this specific question, and the operative fix is an agency action, so DGVS (federal) is the primary channel. There is no state-level lever.

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

• SEMARNAT, Dirección General de Vida Silvestre (DGVS), Espacio de Contacto Ciudadano (executive / agency), contacto.ciudadano@semarnat.gob.mx
  The federal wildlife authority that interprets the LGVS/RLGVS, administers the pet authorization (SEMARNAT-08-056), the PIMVS registration (SEMARNAT-08-045), and the import permit (SEMARNAT-08-009), and that approves Management Plans. This is the office with the actual power to fix the RLGVS Art. 2 ‘mascota’ exclusion or to publish a closed-colony criterion for R. rattus. Email verified as the official DGVS citizen-contact inbox; the linked page is the official SEMARNAT trámite sheet. Write in Spanish.
• PROFEPA (Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente) (executive / agency), denuncias@profepa.gob.mx
  The federal enforcement arm that inspects facilities, verifies legal provenance, confiscates specimens, and levies LGVS sanctions (Art. 122). Useful to ask the enforcement criterion for a private keeper of a closed captive-bred colony with no commercial intent, and what provenance documentation avoids seizure, and to put on record the asymmetry with the openly-tolerated R. norvegicus. Spanish required.
• Cámara de Diputados, Comisión de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (legislature), official contact page
  Secondary / watch touchpoint only. Because a ‘listado positivo’ / tighten-mascota reform of the LGVS has circulated in Congress, this committee is the official channel to (a) ask that any amendment of the LGVS/RLGVS ‘mascota’ rules expressly preserve an authorization pathway for domesticated closed strains, and (b) be alerted before a tightening bill advances. Use as a forward-looking channel, the operative fix today is the federal agency, not the legislature.

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 a regulatory pathway for keeping closed, captive-bred roof rats (Rattus rattus) as domestic animals

To the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre (SEMARNAT):

I am writing about roof rats (Rattus rattus) kept by private keepers as domestic companions. Because R. rattus is on the invasive-species list (DOF 7 Dec 2016), it is treated as 'vida silvestre exótica invasora,' and Article 2 of the Reglamento de la LGVS excludes invasive species from the definition of 'mascota.' The SEMARNAT-08-056 pet authorization therefore appears foreclosed, leaving only PIMVS registration (Art. 78 Bis) as a lawful route to keep one.

My concern is the species classification, not domestication. These animals are captive-bred over many generations, tame, kept strictly indoors, and never released, which is the exact risk the invasive listing addresses. A fully closed, captive-bred colony poses no release risk. The fancy rat (R. norvegicus) is on the identical list yet is kept and sold openly with no wildlife paperwork. 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 two should be treated consistently.

Cats and dogs are also non-native introduced animals documented to harm native wildlife, yet are permitted as pets. Whether the limited additional risk of a sterilized or reproductively controlled, indoor-only roof rat from a closed colony is similarly outweighed by its companionship and educational value is a judgment for SEMARNAT to make.

I respectfully request that the DGVS create a proportionate pathway for closed, captive-bred R. rattus, by interpreting or amending RLGVS Article 2 so domesticated closed strains are not caught by the invasive 'mascota' exclusion, or by publishing a written criterion allowing a SEMARNAT-08-056-type authorization under simple closed-colony conditions, rather than requiring every private keeper to register a full PIMVS. If a facility figure is genuinely required for a small closed colony, please confirm the lightest applicable trámite and whether the Plan de Manejo and Responsable Técnico requirements can be scaled to a small non-commercial colony.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Your name]
[Your city / contact]

Asunto: Solicitud de una vía regulatoria para la tenencia de ratas de tejado (Rattus rattus) criadas en cautiverio cerrado como animales domésticos

A la Dirección General de Vida Silvestre (SEMARNAT):

Me dirijo a ustedes respecto de la tenencia de ratas de tejado (Rattus rattus) como animales de compañía por particulares. Al estar R. rattus en la Lista de Especies Exóticas Invasoras (DOF 07/12/2016), se le considera 'vida silvestre exótica invasora,' y el artículo 2 del Reglamento de la LGVS excluye a las especies invasoras de la definición de 'mascota.' Por ello el trámite SEMARNAT-08-056 parece vedado, quedando solo el registro como PIMVS (Art. 78 Bis) como vía legal para tenerla.

Mi consulta se refiere a la clasificación de la especie, no a la domesticación. Estos ejemplares son criados en cautiverio durante muchas generaciones, mansos, mantenidos estrictamente en interiores y nunca liberados, que es precisamente el riesgo que la lista de invasoras busca evitar. Una colonia totalmente cerrada y criada en cautiverio no representa riesgo de liberación. La rata 'fancy' (R. norvegicus) figura en la misma lista y, no obstante, se mantiene y vende abiertamente sin documentación de vida silvestre. La rata 'fancy' es la propia rata parda silvestre, domesticada apenas en el siglo XIX, de modo que una rata de tejado criada en cautiverio es el mismo caso una especie más allá, y ambas deberían recibir un trato consistente.

Los perros y gatos también son especies introducidas, no nativas, documentadas como dañinas para la fauna silvestre nativa, y aun así se permiten como mascotas. Si el riesgo adicional, limitado, de una rata de tejado esterilizada o con reproducción controlada, mantenida solo en interiores en una colonia cerrada, se ve compensado de igual modo por su valor de compañía y educativo, es una ponderación que corresponde resolver a la SEMARNAT.

Respetuosamente solicito que la DGVS establezca una vía proporcional para R. rattus criada en cautiverio cerrado, interpretando o reformando el artículo 2 del RLGVS para que las cepas domésticas cerradas no queden atrapadas en la exclusión de 'mascota' de las invasoras, o publicando un criterio por escrito que permita una autorización tipo SEMARNAT-08-056 bajo condiciones sencillas de colonia cerrada, en lugar de exigir a cada particular el registro de un PIMVS completo. En caso de requerirse una figura de instalación para una pequeña colonia cerrada, agradeceré confirmar el trámite más ligero aplicable y si los requisitos de Plan de Manejo y Responsable Técnico pueden ajustarse a una colonia pequeña y sin fines comerciales.

Agradezco de antemano su atención.

[Su nombre]
[Su ciudad / contacto]

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