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

Keeping / owning   Restricted

Confidence: High · Last verified 2026-06-06

California classifies every species of Order Rodentia as a ‘detrimental’ restricted wild animal (14 CCR §671; FGC §2118), and CDFW categorically refuses Restricted Species Permits for PET purposes (only research/exhibition/education). The one opening is the exemption for ‘domesticated races of rats or mice (white or albino; trained, dancing or spinning, laboratory-reared)’ (14 CCR §671(c)(2)(J)(1)(c)), which is defined by phenotype/origin, NOT by species. A white/albino, trained, or documented laboratory-reared roof rat may qualify; a phenotypically wild-type (agouti/black) roof rat is presumed an illegal restricted pest. Wild-caught roof rats can never be kept (FGC §3005.5).

Sources: CA Code of Regulations, CA Fish & Game Code, CA Fish & Game Code, CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife

Breeding   Restricted

Confidence: Medium · Last verified 2026-06-06

Breeding restricted rodents is prohibited without research/exhibition permits. If the animals meet the ‘domesticated races’ exemption, breeding is outside CDFW’s wildlife jurisdiction, but local animal-control/zoning rules apply, and any retail sale is governed by the Pet Store Animal Care Act.

Sources: CA Code of Regulations, CA Fish & Game Code

Selling or giving away   Restricted

Confidence: High · Last verified 2026-06-06

Selling restricted wild rodents is prohibited. Selling EXEMPT domesticated rats is legal but regulated by California’s Pet Store Animal Care Act (HSC §122350–122361), which sets enclosure, space, enrichment, and veterinary-care standards for anyone selling vertebrate pets.

Sources: CA Health & Safety Code, CA Code of Regulations

Transport & import   Restricted

Confidence: High · Last verified 2026-06-06

Importing/transporting a restricted rodent needs a permit + Certificate of Veterinary Inspection. An EXEMPT domesticated rat may cross state lines without a restricted-species permit, but every animal entering California is still subject to inspection at CDFA border stations (the roof rat is a top agricultural pest), so carry documentation that the animal is an exempt domestic race. International movement is restricted federally (USFWS Form 3-177, see United States).

Sources: CA Code of Regulations, CA Dept of Food & Agriculture

• Determine whether your animal meets the white/albino/trained/laboratory-reared exemption
• If exempt, no CDFW permit is needed; if not, pet possession is not permitted

Forms: CDFW Restricted Species Permits · Where: CDFW License & Revenue Branch, Special Permits Unit · Fees: Restricted-species permits are not issued for pets

Source: CA Code of Regulations, CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife

Source: CA Health & Safety Code

Where: CDFA border protection stations

Source: CA Dept of Food & Agriculture

Source: Barclays Official California Code of Regulations, California Department of Fish and Wildlife

California treats every rodent species as a “detrimental” restricted wild animal under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 671 (and Fish & Game Code section 2118), and the Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) does not issue possession permits for pets. A wild-type roof rat (Rattus rattus) is therefore effectively illegal to keep. The same animal, bred in captivity, can be as tame as the common pet “fancy rat” (Rattus norvegicus), which is kept freely in California. The fancy rat is itself the wild brown rat (Rattus norvegicus), domesticated in the 19th century; a captive-bred roof rat is the same case one species over. Section 671 contains an exemption for “domesticated races of rats or mice (white or albino; trained, dancing or spinning, laboratory-reared).” That exemption is written by phenotype and origin, not by species. It says “rats or mice”; it does not name Rattus norvegicus and does not exclude Rattus rattus. A white/albino, demonstrably tame/trained, or documented laboratory-reared roof rat arguably fits the text, while a phenotypically wild-type one is presumed an illegal restricted pest. Whether CDFW reads the exemption to reach a domesticated roof-rat line, or treats it as fancy-rats-only, is the unresolved question, and it determines whether this is fixed by a clarification or by a rule change.

The ask: Two-track ask. (1) Ask CDFW’s License & Revenue Branch / Special Permits Unit, in writing, to confirm whether the section 671(c)(2)(J)(1)(c) exemption for “domesticated races of rats or mice (white or albino; trained, dancing or spinning, laboratory-reared)” applies to a captive-bred, tame, domesticated line of roof rat (Rattus rattus), since the exemption is written by phenotype/origin and names no species, and to explain how the Department operationally defines “trained” and “laboratory-reared.” (2) If CDFW answers that section 671 as written does not reach a domesticated roof rat, that is a question of the rule’s text, which only the California Fish and Game Commission can change. The next ask is then a formal FGC 1 petition (and supporting public comment) to amend section 671 to add domesticated Rattus rattus to the exemption, the same path used to seek removal of the domestic ferret. The relevant question is domestication, not the wild ancestry of the species. The dog descends from the wolf and the house cat from a wild felid, yet California treats both as domestic animals because of generations bred for tameness, not their wild ancestry. The permitted fancy rat is itself the wild brown rat (Rattus norvegicus), domesticated in the 19th century (https://blonderoofrat.com/how-the-sewer-rat-became-the-fancy-rat/); a captive-bred roof rat is domesticated in that same sense, one species over. The Department and the Commission are asked to weigh that question, not to reach a particular result.

Where the lever really is: This is both levers in sequence, and the order matters. First, it is plausibly a bureaucracy-reading problem (lever = the AGENCY): the exemption text in 14 CCR §671 is species-blind (“rats or mice”; no binomial; verified against the regulation), so a clarification or declaratory answer from CDFW could confirm a domesticated R. rattus already qualifies, with no rule change needed. Start by asking CDFW’s License & Revenue Branch / Special Permits Unit for a written interpretation. There is a ceiling: if CDFW responds that §671 is meant to cover only fancy rats / lab-reared origin and a wild-type roof rat is excluded, the obstacle is the rule’s text and the listing of all Rodentia as “detrimental,” and CDFW cannot rewrite the regulation by email. The body that owns and can amend 14 CCR §671 is the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC), via its formal petition-for-regulation-change process (FGC 1 form) and the associated public-comment window, the same lever the domestic-ferret campaign uses. Appealing further to CDFW will not change a rule it is correctly applying; that step requires an FGC rulemaking petition. If the Commission concludes the blanket Rodentia restriction in Fish & Game Code §2118 ties its hands, the final backstop is the Legislature. The fancy rat already permitted in California is itself the wild brown rat (Rattus norvegicus), domesticated in the 19th century (https://blonderoofrat.com/how-the-sewer-rat-became-the-fancy-rat/), and a captive-bred R. rattus is domesticated in the same sense one species over. Net: agency first for a clarification that may already exist in the text; Commission rulemaking if the text genuinely excludes the species.

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

• California Department of Fish and Wildlife, License & Revenue Branch / Special Permits Unit (Restricted Species) (executive / agency), LRB@wildlife.ca.gov
  The Department that interprets and administers 14 CCR §671 and issues (and declines) restricted-species permits. This is the correct first stop for a written clarification on whether the species-blind ‘domesticated races of rats or mice’ exemption already reaches a captive-bred, tame roof rat. Verified official contact page; verified branch email LRB@wildlife.ca.gov and lines (916) 928-5805 / (916) 928-5846.
• California Fish and Game Commission, Petition for Regulation Change (FGC 1) / Submit Comments (public comment), fgc@fgc.ca.gov
  The rulemaking body that actually owns 14 CCR §671 and is the ONLY entity that can amend the restricted-species list or its exemptions. If CDFW reads the rule as excluding domesticated roof rats, this is where a formal FGC 1 petition (and public comment) to add domesticated Rattus rattus to the exemption must go, the same channel used for the domestic-ferret effort. Verified official petition page and inbox fgc@fgc.ca.gov.
• California State Legislature, Find Your Representatives (legislature), official contact page
  Backstop lever. The blanket classification of all Rodentia as restricted traces to Fish & Game Code §2118 (statute). If the Commission concludes the statute prevents it from exempting the species by regulation, only the Legislature can change the underlying law, so contacting your own Assembly Member and Senator becomes the route. Official legislative find-your-rep tool.

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 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, License & Revenue Branch / Special Permits Unit:

I am writing to request a written clarification about the restricted-species exemption in 14 CCR §671(c)(2)(J)(1)(c). The rule restricts all rodents but exempts "domesticated races of rats or mice (white or albino; trained, dancing or spinning, laboratory-reared)." That exemption is written by phenotype and origin. It says "rats or mice" and names no species.

My question is whether this exemption applies to a captive-bred, domesticated and tame line of roof rat (Rattus rattus) that is white/albino, trained, or laboratory-reared, the same way it applies to the common pet rat (Rattus norvegicus). Domestication is a matter of an animal's breeding history and temperament, not its species. The dog descends from the wolf and the house cat from a wild felid, yet both are recognized as domestic animals because of generations bred for tameness, not their wild ancestry. The permitted fancy rat is itself the wild brown rat (Rattus norvegicus), domesticated in the 19th century, and a captive-bred roof rat is domesticated in that same sense. These animals are captive-bred, hand-tame, kept strictly indoors as pets, and never released into the wild.

If the Department reads §671 as not reaching a domesticated R. rattus, please say so plainly, and please explain how the Department defines "trained" and "laboratory-reared" for this exemption. If a regulatory change is required, I intend to petition the Fish and Game Commission.

Thank you for your time and for a written reply.

Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your city, California]
[Your email]

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