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

Keeping / owning   Restricted

Confidence: High · Last verified 2026-06-10

Bird and Mammal Classification Table 3b-1 (incorporated by Utah Admin. Code R657-3b) lists ‘Rat, Norway / Rattus norvegicus’ as a domestic animal not covered by the rule, but does NOT list Rattus rattus. The table’s header makes every unlisted species ‘presumed prohibited … require an assessment before … possession will be authorized,’ and R657-3b-8 requires a Certificate of Registration before collecting/possessing any prohibited or controlled species. So possessing a captive-bred roof rat is not automatically illegal, a lawful COR pathway exists via a species assessment / variance, but it cannot proceed without prior DWR authorization, and unauthorized possession is a violation of Utah Code 23A-5-309. Restricted, not prohibited.

Sources: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah State Legislature

Breeding   Restricted

Confidence: High · Last verified 2026-06-10

R657-3b-13 requires a Certificate of Registration before propagating any species classified as prohibited or controlled. Because R. rattus is unlisted on Table 3b-1 (presumed prohibited pending assessment), breeding can’t proceed without a favorable DWR assessment and a COR that affirmatively authorizes propagation, which ‘may contain stipulations to prevent detrimental impacts to wild populations, the environment, or human health or safety.’ No exemption applies (the table names R. norvegicus, not R. rattus). A lawful pathway exists, so this is restricted; the DR notes the propagation burden is higher than mere possession given the species’ pest-manual classification.

Sources: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Selling or giving away   Restricted

Confidence: High · Last verified 2026-06-10

Utah Code 23A-5-309 bars collecting, possessing, transporting, donating, transferring, or exporting protected wildlife except as authorized by a rule, proclamation, or Wildlife Board order. Because R. rattus is unlisted / presumed prohibited, any sale or gift is lawful only to a recipient who already holds the necessary DWR COR for the species, transferring to an unregistered Utah resident implicates both parties. A commercial storefront additionally needs local municipal pet-shop/dealer licensing and zoning approval, which the COR application requires be resolved first. A pathway exists (transfer between COR holders), so restricted, not prohibited.

Sources: Utah State Legislature, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Transport & import   Restricted

Confidence: High · Last verified 2026-06-10

Intrastate movement of an unlisted/presumed-prohibited mammal triggers a COR (R657-3b-11); even moving a legally held roof rat between Utah counties must be covered by the COR. Importation compounds the requirement: a COR is required before importing (R657-3b-10), and UDAF Rule R58-1-13 makes it unlawful to import any species prohibited under R657-3, requiring a Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (CVI) plus a UDAF entry permit for any animal that needs a DWR COR. A lawful path exists (COR + CVI + entry permit), so restricted. Never release a roof rat.

Sources: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Dept of Agriculture & Food, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

• Contact the DWR Wildlife Registration / COR office (dwrregistration@utah.gov) about classification and a species assessment for captive-bred R. rattus
• File a Request for Variance (R657-3a-9) for personal possession/breeding, OR a Request for Species Reclassification (R657-3a-8) to restore R. rattus to the noncontrolled/domestic-exempt list ($200 each)
• If a variance/assessment is granted, apply for the COR ($10 handling + $75 personal or $150 commercial; $30 renewal) and meet caging/husbandry/inspection stipulations
• Resolve local municipal/county zoning and pet-shop/dealer licensing first (required before the COR application)
• For import: obtain a Certificate of Veterinary Inspection and a UDAF entry permit (R58-1-13)
• If the Wildlife Board’s presiding officer denies a request for agency action, the requesting party may seek a hearing before the Board to challenge that denial (R657-2-6(3)(b)(i)(C))

Forms: Utah DWR Certificate of Registration (Wildlife Registration office), DWR COR Application (birds & mammals), DWR Fee Schedule (licenses, permits & miscellaneous) · Where: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Wildlife Registration / COR office, 1594 W. North Temple, Suite 2110, Box 146301, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6301 (import permit: Utah Dept of Agriculture & Food, Animal Industry) · Fees: Species reclassification or variance request $200 each; COR $10 handling + $75 personal / $150 commercial issuance, $30 renewal, $10 amendment; UDAF CVI + entry permit fees for import.

Source: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Dept of Agriculture & Food, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

• Keep roof rats strictly indoors; never release
• Rehome only to a COR-authorized recipient

Source: Utah State Legislature, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Utah classifies birds and mammals species-by-species, and the domesticated roof rat (Rattus rattus) falls through a gap. The Division of Wildlife Resources’ Bird and Mammal Classification Table 3b-1 (under Admin. Rule R657-3b) names the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus, the species behind the common pet ‘fancy rat’) as a domestic animal ‘not covered’ by the rule and fully exempt. Rattus rattus appears nowhere on that table. Under the rule, any unlisted species is ‘presumed prohibited’ and requires a DWR assessment and authorization before it can be possessed, bred, sold, or imported. A captive-bred, tame roof rat is not flatly illegal. A lawful pathway exists (a Certificate of Registration obtained through a variance or species reclassification), but the rat cannot be legally kept without a prior DWR determination. This is an enumeration gap, not a decision that roof rats are dangerous. The near-identical fancy rat is exempt by name, while the roof rat is missing. The gap is recent. Until the May 1, 2023 rule rewrite, the old rule R657-3(32) jointly listed ‘Rats, Norway and Black (Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus)’ as exempt domestic pets, so for over a decade captive-bred roof rats had the same unregulated status as fancy rats. The 2023 simplification carried only the Norway rat onto the new Table 3b-1 and dropped the roof rat, with no record of any finding that domesticated roof rats are dangerous.

The ask: Restore captive-bred, domestic-lineage Rattus rattus to Table 3b-1 as a noncontrolled/domestic-exempt species, alongside the Norway rat that is already listed and that the roof rat shared a line with under the pre-2023 rule. Specifically: (1) ask DWR in writing whether the post-2023 omission of R. rattus from Table 3b-1 was intentional, and whether captive-bred R. rattus can be grouped with R. norvegicus as a domestic commensal-rodent strain rather than treated as an unlisted species needing individual assessment; and (2) file or support a Request for Species Reclassification under R657-3a-8 ($200 fee) to amend Table 3b-1 to list captive-bred R. rattus as noncontrolled/domestic-exempt, restoring its pre-2023 status. The relevant question is domestication, not wild ancestry. The dog descends from the wolf and the house cat from a wild felid, yet both are treated as domestic animals because of generations bred for tameness rather than wild origins. The already-exempt Norway-rat fancy rat is itself the wild brown rat, domesticated only in the 19th century, so a captive-bred R. rattus is the same case one species over. That is the question the Division is asked to weigh, not a result it is asked to reach. Because the classification lives in an administrative rule that DWR controls, not a statute, DWR (through the Wildlife Board’s rulemaking process) is the body that can fix it. On domestication background, see https://blonderoofrat.com/how-the-sewer-rat-became-the-fancy-rat/ .

Where the lever really is: This is the agency/rule branch, fixable through the Division of Wildlife Resources, not the legislature. The restriction comes from an administrative classification choice, not a statute that bans roof rats. The Utah Code (Title 23A, Wildlife Resources Code) delegates species-classification authority to the DWR and Wildlife Board. The list lives in Admin. Rule R657-3b and its incorporated Bird and Mammal Classification Table 3b-1 (May 1, 2023), both of which the DWR drafts and the Wildlife Board adopts. Nothing in statute names or prohibits the roof rat. It is absent from a table, which triggers the rule’s default that an unlisted species is presumed prohibited. The Norway rat (the fancy rat’s species) is named as domestic-exempt on the same table, and the same table jointly listed both rats until the May 2023 rewrite, which shows the table is the right instrument and the omission is an enumeration gap, not a policy judgment that roof rats are uniquely dangerous. The fix is an agency action: a written classification determination from the DWR Certificate of Registration office, and/or a Request for Species Reclassification under R657-3a-8 (Utah Code 63G-3-601 separately lets any person petition an agency to amend a rule) to add captive-bred R. rattus back to Table 3b-1. Two caveats. First, the legislature is not the primary lever, because the classification is administrative code, not statutory text, and petitioning lawmakers would redirect to DWR. Second, the DR notes the roof rat is entrenched in Utah’s own pest manuals as an invasive structural pest, so the reclassification panel (DWR plus Dept. of Agriculture & Food plus Dept. of Health & Human Services) will require a strong biosecurity and domestic-lineage case; the realistic near-term win may be a personal-use variance (R657-3a-9) rather than statewide reclassification. Start with the agency, which can both interpret the gap and rewrite the table.

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

• Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Wildlife Registration / Certificate of Registration (COR) office (executive / agency), dwrregistration@utah.gov
  The COR office administers Rule R657-3b and Table 3b-1, the exact instrument that lists the Norway rat as domestic-exempt and omits the roof rat, and processes both variance requests (R657-3a-9) and species reclassification petitions (R657-3a-8). Ask in writing whether the post-2023 omission of R. rattus was intentional and whether captive-bred R. rattus can be grouped with R. norvegicus or restored to the noncontrolled list. Verified contact (DR): dwrregistration@utah.gov; phone 801-538-4701 / 385-332-6154; mail to 1594 W. North Temple, Suite 2110, Box 146301, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6301.
• Utah DWR, Request for Species Reclassification (Utah Admin. Code R657-3a-8) (executive / agency), dwrregistration@utah.gov
  The formal channel to restore captive-bred R. rattus to Table 3b-1’s noncontrolled/domestic-exempt list, the same list it shared with R. norvegicus before May 2023. A reclassification petition ($200 fee) compels an interagency review (DWR + Dept. of Agriculture & Food + Dept. of Health & Human Services) and a formal Wildlife Board recommendation on the record, rather than an informal staff answer. If granted it legalizes the species statewide; if the Wildlife Board’s presiding officer denies a request for agency action, the requesting party may seek a hearing before the Board to challenge that denial (R657-2-6(3)(b)(i)(C)).
• Utah Office of Administrative Rules, Petition for Rulemaking (Utah Code 63G-3-601) / Public Notice Website (public comment), official contact page
  Any person may petition a state agency to amend an existing rule under Utah Code 63G-3-601 (Office of Administrative Rules, rules.utah.gov, phone 801-957-7110). If DWR opens any rulemaking touching R657-3b or Table 3b-1, the proposed-rule notice, comment-period dates (typically 30+ days), and agency contact are posted on the Utah Public Notice Website (utah.gov/pmn) and in the twice-monthly Utah State Bulletin, the place a well-supported species-addition comment lands on the formal record. No roof-rat-specific window is open now; watch this portal.

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: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Wildlife Registration / Certificate of Registration Office
Re: Classification of captive-bred domestic roof rat (Rattus rattus) under Rule R657-3b / Bird and Mammal Classification Table 3b-1

Dear Wildlife Registration Office,

I am writing about a gap in Bird and Mammal Classification Table 3b-1. The table names the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), the species behind the common pet 'fancy rat', as a domestic animal not covered by R657-3b, but the closely related roof rat (Rattus rattus) is not listed, which leaves it presumed prohibited by default and assessable only through a Certificate of Registration.

This appears to be a recent and possibly inadvertent change. Until the May 1, 2023 rule rewrite, the prior rule R657-3(32) jointly exempted 'Rats, Norway and Black (Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus)' as non-COR domestic pets. The 2023 simplification carried over only the Norway rat and dropped the roof rat, with no published finding that domesticated roof rats are dangerous.

The animals at issue are captive-bred, selectively bred for tameness, kept strictly indoors as pets, and never released to the wild. They are domesticated companion rodents, no different in keeping from the Norway-rat fancy rat the table already exempts. What makes an animal domestic is its breeding history, not its wild ancestry. 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. The exempt Norway 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 distinction is species enumeration, not domestication or any public-safety concern.

I respectfully ask the Division to: (1) state in writing whether the post-2023 omission of R. rattus from Table 3b-1 was intentional, and whether captive-bred R. rattus is treated as unlisted and assessable or can be grouped with R. norvegicus as a domestic strain; and (2) advise what a Request for Species Reclassification under R657-3a-8 to restore captive-bred Rattus rattus to Table 3b-1's noncontrolled/domestic-exempt section would require. Thank you for your time and for considering this correction.

Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your city, Utah] / [Your email]

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