# wild rats living with pet rats?



## blade100 (Aug 24, 2009)

right someone i know rescued a load of wild rats,they were 7 days old and were put straight into a litter of pet rats and the mum.
all have survived,there is 27 altogether.

i'm considering taking 2 males that are 5-6 weeks old.
the man who has them says they are jumpy and show signs of there wild side.
none have bitten but like i say are jumpy.
they have just been split from his domestocated pet baby rats and they all snuggled up nicely with his.
(he breeds for our local pet shops round my way)

so the question is would they be ok to put in with my lot?
i'd want 2 males.
would there be any health risks like any wild rat infectious diseaes that could be past on to my lot?

thanks
amy


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

I honestly don't think they would be any risk if they have been in a domestic environment for 4-5 weeks already


----------



## Lil Miss (Dec 11, 2010)

there wouldnt be any risk at all
in the long run you will probably find they will be healthier then your domestic rats

domestic rats and wild rats are the same species, so there wont be any problems at all with them cohabiting, aslong as they like each other


----------



## blade100 (Aug 24, 2009)

what about when they go through the hormonal stage?
do u think they would become really aggressive?
i have my 9 boys to think about.


----------



## Lil Miss (Dec 11, 2010)

no more ggressive then any other rat, the only thing is they are likely to remain very skittish


----------



## blade100 (Aug 24, 2009)

ok well i'm going to veiw them tomorrow or friday.


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

i dont think they would be aggressive with other rats at all, id imagine they would be more bonded to other rats rather then people


----------



## spoiled_rat (Mar 24, 2008)

Lil Miss said:


> there wouldnt be any risk at all
> in the long run you will probably find they will be healthier then your domestic rats


Of course there would be risk to both humans and rats, Leptospirosis anybody?!

Why would they be any healthier than domestic rats? The opposite is technically true.


----------



## Lil Miss (Dec 11, 2010)

spoiled_rat said:


> Of course there would be risk to both humans and rats, Leptospirosis anybody?!
> 
> Why would they be any healthier than domestic rats? The opposite is technically true.


i have heard of plenty of people keeping home raised wild rats before.

they are healthier and longer lived due to the survival of the fittest in nature, they are also much less prone to URI and tumours

also not ALL wildies carry Leptospirosis at all, only those living in absolute squalor and poor conditions (aka sewers) it is VERY unlikely that a rat found as a kit would have Leptospirosis, and dogs are just as likely to bring Leptospirosis into a house as a rat as they can also carry it...... as can cows.....

you can also blood test them for Leptospirosis if you are worried they may be a carrier, and can easily be treated with antibiotics


----------



## spoiled_rat (Mar 24, 2008)

Lil Miss said:


> they are healthier and longer lived due to the survival of the fittest in nature, they are also much less prone to URI and tumours


You are discounting the fact that breeders select for good health and the fittest too 

There is no selection against tumours in the wild is there, as they often don't live long enough to actually develop them in later life like our pets do, and thus no selection actually takes place, not even survival of the fittest? There is selection with domestic rats.

The litter of half-wild rats I had nearly 5 years ago now, were rather unhealthy, and 9 out of the 11 had mammary lumps, including the bucks. The youngest died at 14 months, the eldest made 23 months, and cost a hell of a lot in vet bills.

The wildie I have at the moment, and the litter of 9 half-wildies I took in, so far, are healthy, but all are less than a year old.


----------



## Lil Miss (Dec 11, 2010)

of course not all wildies are healthier but MOST tend to be, the tumorous tend to come about from how we have bred them, as has their suseptability to URIs and us choosing them to look certain ways and conforn to breed standards, in the wild they dont care how they look. they only care about surviving.
wildlife in general will always be genetically healthier then their domestic counterparts


----------



## spoiled_rat (Mar 24, 2008)

Lil Miss said:


> of course not all wildies are healthier but MOST tend to be, the tumorous tend to come about from how we have bred them, as has their suseptability to URIs and us choosing them to look certain ways and conforn to breed standards, in the wild they dont care how they look. they only care about surviving.
> wildlife in general will always be genetically healthier then their domestic counterparts


But most aren't...you say about 'survival of the fitttest' but seeing as rats are fertile from 4.5+ weeks, and a buck kitten from a litter of 6 could easily impregnante his mother at that age...that is hardly being the fittest is it? It's just instinct and opportunity.

You mention breed standards, but this has no effect whatsoever on their overall fitness or physical state really, bar their fur or ears which is hardly playing around with them and their physical conformation is the same as with wild rats.

I am not sure what you mean by tumours beign prevalent due to how we breed them, seeing as there is far less chance of tumours/lumps in breeder rats than petshop or wild stock which have no real selection against them.

2 of my lines live far, far longer than average (UK average for domestic rats is 22 months, wild rats is 11 months), and that's through good, but ruthless selection, they are also the colour I want them, and the fur type I want them to be, with no impact on health


----------



## owieprone (Nov 6, 2008)

spoiled_rat said:


> You are discounting the fact that breeders select for good health and the fittest too
> 
> There is no selection against tumours in the wild is there, as they often don't live long enough to actually develop them in later life like our pets do, and thus no selection actually takes place, not even survival of the fittest? There is selection with domestic rats.
> 
> ...


----------



## elmthesofties (Aug 8, 2011)

spoiled_rat said:


> You are discounting the fact that breeders select for good health and the fittest too
> 
> There is no selection against tumours in the wild is there, as they often don't live long enough to actually develop them in later life like our pets do, and thus no selection actually takes place, not even survival of the fittest? There is selection with domestic rats.
> 
> ...


I agree with this, but I think a lot of damage has been done by the rodent farms and the lab rats. I got my first two rats from a HIGHLY respected rat breeder who has even had some of their rats shipped to other countries. (looking at your profile picture, I'm not sure if you're actually somebody who knows her..? And I'm sure the person I'm thinking of has talked about keeping half wild rats, too, although I seem to remember they rehomed quite a few of them) They had a lot of problems. Tumors, lumps (which dissappeared after a few days, but at times it stopped them walking), skin infections, lung infections... you name it. I don't know how much of that was their care, but the rescue rats I got recently are actually a lot healthier.

If you're worried that the rats you'd be getting were diseased, you could always put them in quarentine for a short while. The chances would be pretty low, but there's no harm.


----------



## spoiled_rat (Mar 24, 2008)

elmthesofties said:


> I got my first two rats from a HIGHLY respected rat breeder who has even had some of their rats shipped to other countries. (looking at your profile picture, I'm not sure if you're actually somebody who knows her..? And I'm sure the person I'm thinking of has talked about keeping half wild rats, too, although I seem to remember they rehomed quite a few of them) They had a lot of problems. Tumors, lumps (which dissappeared after a few days, but at times it stopped them walking), skin infections, lung infections... you name it. I don't know how much of that was their care, but the rescue rats I got recently are actually a lot healthier.


Which breeder was it?


----------



## Snippet (Apr 14, 2011)

From what I've read, wild rats are about at healthy as your average pet shop rat, but with a much shorter lifespan. They are just as prone to URIs as that tends to be a husbandry issue (not always, but rats kept in dirty conditions develop them more often), and they can and do get tumors. My cat has brought in a female rat that was riddled with them. The survival of the fittest thing doesn't make them any healthier then pet rats. After all they can breed from the age of 5 weeks, so if they make it to that age then they will reproduce. 

The males are more likely to get aggressive, so if it often a good idea to have them neutered before they get to their hormonal stage. They are more skittish then pet rats, but if handled reguarly from before their eyes open then they are more likely to be handleable.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

I've also read that wild rats are equally as prone to tumours as pet shop rats, though they don't often have a chance to manifest due to their shortened life expectancy


----------

