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

Keeping / owning   Prohibited

Confidence: High · Last verified 2026-06-24

R. rattus is an ‘exotic mammal’ under FOR-2017-05-11-597 Section 2, which bans keeping exotic mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. It qualifies as exotic because it does not live wild in Norway (Red-Listed RE / Regionally Extinct) and is not a traditional Norwegian family animal, unlike R. norvegicus, which is permitted as an ordinary pet rodent. The regulation’s only species exception (Section 3) covers 19 reptiles, not mammals. Keeping is therefore prohibited by default, but Section 5 lets Mattilsynet grant a dispensation in ‘special cases’ with conditions. That pathway is narrow and, in practice, has applied to institutions and grandfathered relocations rather than private hobbyists; no private precedent for a pet R. rattus is documented. Classed as prohibited for a private keeper: the only lawful route (a Section 5 ‘special cases’ dispensation) is discretionary and, in administrative practice, limited to zoos, research, and grandfathered relocations, with no documented private-hobbyist precedent, so it is not a realistic pet-keeping pathway. Section 2 was verified verbatim on Lovdata (2026-06-24): ‘Det er forbudt aa innfoere, omsette og holde eksotiske pattedyr’. A written Mattilsynet determination would confirm the dispensation practice.

Sources: Landbruks- og matdepartementet / Mattilsynet (Lovdata), Mattilsynet, Mattilsynet, Artsdatabanken, Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet (Lovdata)

Breeding   Prohibited

Confidence: High · Last verified 2026-06-13

Breeding follows the keeping ban: an exotic mammal that may not lawfully be kept under FOR-2017-05-11-597 Section 2 cannot be lawfully bred. No captive-bred or domesticated-lineage exception is written for any mammal; the Section 3 captive-bred exception applies only to the 19 listed reptiles. Even a hypothetical Section 5 dispensation to keep would not by itself authorise breeding. Lawful breeding would first require the species to be added to the permitted framework.

Sources: Landbruks- og matdepartementet / Mattilsynet (Lovdata), Mattilsynet

Selling or giving away   Prohibited

Confidence: High · Last verified 2026-06-13

FOR-2017-05-11-597 Section 2 forbids ‘omsette’ (trade and transfer) of exotic mammals, which covers selling, giving away, and receiving. R. rattus is not carved out, and no commercial or non-commercial transfer exception exists for this species. Any transfer would be unlawful unless and until the species is added to the permitted framework or covered by a specific dispensation.

Sources: Landbruks- og matdepartementet / Mattilsynet (Lovdata)

Transport & import   Prohibited

Confidence: High · Last verified 2026-06-24

Because keeping R. rattus is prohibited (FOR-2017-05-11-597 §2), there is no lawful keeping purpose for importing one, so import is treated as prohibited for a private keeper. Importing R. rattus requires a discretionary permit under FOR-2015-06-19-716 Section 6, because the species is on neither annex of the Alien Organisms Regulation (domesticated R. norvegicus is on the free-import annex; R. rattus is not). A Section 6 permit may be granted where the import is not likely to cause substantial adverse consequences for biological diversity, and the species’ RE (Regionally Extinct) status makes the establishment risk from indoor, captive-bred stock low. By contrast R. norvegicus needs no alien-organism permit and may travel non-commercially (5 or fewer animals, with a health certificate for third-country origin). Presenting R. rattus at the border without a prior Section 6 permit is an illegal import. A border permit also does not lift the Exotic Animal Regulation keeping ban. Never release a non-native animal.

Sources: Klima- og miljodepartementet / Miljodirektoratet (Lovdata), Mattilsynet, Mattilsynet, Artsdatabanken

• Request a written Mattilsynet determination on whether captive-bred, indoor-kept R. rattus is ‘exotic’ under FOR-2017-05-11-597 Section 2
• If pursuing keeping, apply for a Section 5 dispensation and ask what evidence (veterinary health, housing) is required

Where: Mattilsynet (Norwegian Food Safety Authority)

Source: Landbruks- og matdepartementet / Mattilsynet (Lovdata), Mattilsynet

• Apply to Miljodirektoratet for a Section 6 import permit via the Soknadssenter portal, arguing negligible establishment risk for indoor, captive-bred stock (RE status)

Forms: Miljodirektoratet – Tillatelse etter forskrift om fremmede organismer · Where: Miljodirektoratet (Norwegian Environment Agency)

Source: Klima- og miljodepartementet / Miljodirektoratet (Lovdata)

• If pursuing keeping, ask FHI / the local municipality whether a federal keeping dispensation preempts the pest-control duty for an indoor pet R. rattus

Where: Folkehelseinstituttet (FHI); the local municipality (kommunen)

Source: Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet (Lovdata), Folkehelseinstituttet (FHI)

In Norway it is forbidden to import, trade, or keep ‘exotic mammals’ under the Exotic Animal Regulation (FOR-2017-05-11-597 Section 2). The rule defines ‘exotic’ by species, a species that does not live wild in Norway and is not a traditional Norwegian family animal, not by whether the individual animal is tame and captive-bred. The common fancy rat (Rattus norvegicus) is treated as an ordinary companion rodent and may be kept. The roof rat (Rattus rattus), even when it is a domesticated, captive-bred, indoor-only pet, is not a traditional Norwegian family animal and does not live wild here (it is Red-Listed Regionally Extinct), so it counts as an exotic mammal and is barred by default. The only species exception (Section 3) covers 19 reptiles, not mammals. Lawful keeping would need a discretionary ‘special cases’ dispensation under Section 5, which in practice has applied to institutions and grandfathered relocations, not private hobbyists. Importing one also requires a separate discretionary permit from the Environment Agency under the Alien Organisms Regulation (FOR-2015-06-19-716 Section 6), because R. rattus is on neither its prohibited nor its free-import annex. A tame pet rat is therefore treated like wild exotic wildlife because of its species label. The already-permitted fancy rat (Rattus norvegicus) is itself the wild brown rat, domesticated only in the 19th century, so a captive-bred Rattus rattus is the same case one species over.

The ask: Add the domesticated, captive-bred roof rat (Rattus rattus) to Norway’s recognised companion-rodent framework, the same status the fancy rat (Rattus norvegicus) already has, so that tame, indoor-kept roof rats can be legally kept, and ideally transferred and bred, by responsible owners. The regulation’s exotic-by-species line cuts against how domestication works. The relevant test is domestication, not wild ancestry or species label. The dog descends from the wolf and the cat from a wild felid, yet both are recognised as domestic animals, because what defines a domestic animal is generations of captive breeding for tameness. A captive-bred roof rat is domesticated in that same sense, no more wild than the fancy rat already permitted. The already-permitted fancy rat (Rattus norvegicus) is itself the wild brown rat, domesticated only in the 19th century, so a captive-bred Rattus rattus is the same case one species over (see https://blonderoofrat.com/how-the-sewer-rat-became-the-fancy-rat/ ). Because the roof rat is Red-Listed Regionally Extinct in Norway, indoor, captive-bred animals pose no establishment risk. This is the mechanism Norway used in 2017, when a long-standing ban was lifted and a positive list of 19 reptile species was created after civil-society advocacy. The request to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food / Mattilsynet is to open the same kind of review for domesticated roof rats.

Where the lever really is: The problem is the law as written, the species’ absence from the recognised companion framework, not an agency misreading. Mattilsynet is applying FOR-2017-05-11-597 correctly: the regulation classifies ‘exotic’ by species and tradition (does it live wild in Norway and is it a traditional family animal?), not by whether the individual animal is domesticated, so R. norvegicus is treated as a normal pet and R. rattus is barred. Asking Mattilsynet to allow a tame roof rat will not work, because the keeping ban has no individual-animal discretion for an unlisted exotic species (only the narrow Section 5 ‘special cases’ dispensation, which has no hobbyist precedent). The fix requires changing the framework itself, which sits with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Landbruks- og matdepartementet) that owns the regulation, with Mattilsynet as the administering agency that initiates and advises on such amendments. The lever is a regulatory / positive-list change (a petition to add domesticated R. rattus to the recognised companion framework), pursued through Mattilsynet and the Ministry, the proven 2017 reptile-reform pathway, not an appeal asking the agency to reinterpret a rule it is reading correctly. The Environment Agency’s Section 6 import-permit portal is a separate touchpoint for the import side, included as a secondary channel, but it cannot fix the keeping or transfer status; only the framework change can.

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

• Mattilsynet (Norwegian Food Safety Authority) – administers the Exotic Animal Regulation (executive / agency), postmottak@mattilsynet.no
  Primary channel. Mattilsynet administers FOR-2017-05-11-597 and is the body that initiates and advises the Ministry of Agriculture and Food on amendments to the exotic-animal rules. Ask it (a) to confirm in writing how captive-bred, indoor-kept R. rattus is classified under Section 2 and what a Section 5 dispensation requires, and (b) for the procedure to petition adding domesticated R. rattus to the recognised companion framework, the same route used for the 2017 reptile positive list. Official inbox and contact page both verified; English accepted.
• Miljodirektoratet (Norwegian Environment Agency) – alien-organisms import permits (Soknadssenter) (executive / agency), esshjelp@miljodir.no
  Secondary, import side. Because R. rattus is on neither annex of the Alien Organisms Regulation, an import needs a discretionary Section 6 permit here. Worth asking whether establishment risk is assessed as negligible for strictly indoor, captive-bred stock given that the species is Red-Listed Regionally Extinct in Norway. Note: this portal handles import only, it cannot change the keeping or transfer ban, which is the framework question for Mattilsynet and the Ministry. Portal and help-desk email verified.

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 add the domesticated roof rat (Rattus rattus) to Norway's recognised companion-rodent framework

Dear Norwegian Food Safety Authority,

I am writing about the Exotic Animal Regulation (FOR-2017-05-11-597). Under this rule the common fancy rat (Rattus norvegicus) is treated as an ordinary companion rodent, but the domesticated roof rat (Rattus rattus) is barred as an exotic mammal, even though it is captive-bred, tame, kept strictly indoors, and never released.

The regulation classifies a species as exotic by whether it lives wild in Norway and is a traditional family animal, but the animals I am describing are domesticated pets, no more wild than a fancy rat. The relevant test is domestication, not wild ancestry or species label. The dog descends from the wolf and the cat from a wild felid, yet both are recognised as domestic animals, because what defines a domestic animal is generations of captive breeding for tameness. A captive-bred roof rat is domesticated in that same sense. The already-permitted fancy rat (Rattus norvegicus) is itself the wild brown rat, domesticated only in the 19th century, so a captive-bred Rattus rattus is the same case one species over. Roof rats are also Red-Listed Regionally Extinct in Norway, so indoor, captive-bred animals pose no establishment risk.

I ask that you clarify in writing how captive-bred, indoor-kept R. rattus is classified under Section 2 and what a Section 5 dispensation to keep one would require, and that you set out the procedure to petition adding domesticated R. rattus to the recognised companion framework, the same kind of reform Norway adopted for reptiles in 2017.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Your name]
[Your town/region]
[Your email]

Emne: Anmodning om å føre opp den domestiserte svartrotta (Rattus rattus) i det anerkjente rammeverket for kjæledyrgnagere i Norge

Til Mattilsynet,

Jeg skriver angående forskrift om forbud mot å innføre, omsette og holde eksotiske dyr (FOR-2017-05-11-597). Etter denne forskriften regnes den vanlige tamrotta (Rattus norvegicus) som en alminnelig kjæledyrgnager, mens den domestiserte svartrotta (Rattus rattus) er forbudt som eksotisk pattedyr, selv om den er oppdrettet i fangenskap, tam, holdes utelukkende innendørs og aldri settes ut.

Forskriften klassifiserer en art som eksotisk ut fra om den lever vilt i Norge og er et tradisjonelt familiedyr, men dyrene jeg beskriver er domestiserte kjæledyr, ikke mer ville enn en tamrotte. Det relevante kriteriet er domestisering, ikke det ville opphavet eller artsnavnet. Hunden nedstammer fra ulven og katten fra en vill kattedyrart, og likevel regnes begge som husdyr, fordi det som gjør et dyr domestisert er generasjoner med avl i fangenskap for tamhet. En oppdrettet svartrotte er domestisert i akkurat samme forstand. Den allerede tillatte tamrotta (Rattus norvegicus) er selv den ville brunrotta, domestisert først på 1800-tallet, slik at en oppdrettet Rattus rattus er det samme tilfellet, bare én art unna. Svartrotta er dessuten rødlistet som RE (regionalt utdødd) i Norge, slik at innendørs oppdrettede dyr ikke utgjør noen etableringsrisiko.

Jeg ber om at dere skriftlig avklarer hvordan oppdrettet, innendørs holdt R. rattus klassifiseres etter paragraf 2, og hva en dispensasjon etter paragraf 5 for å holde en slik rotte vil kreve, og at dere redegjør for fremgangsmåten for å søke om å føre opp domestisert R. rattus i det anerkjente rammeverket for kjæledyrarter, tilsvarende reformen Norge gjennomførte for reptiler i 2017.

Takk for at dere vurderer dette.

[Ditt navn]
[Ditt sted/fylke]
[Din e-post]

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