Not as a proven two-shark event. A bull shark was reported near Alton, Illinois, in 1937, and a second report near Rush Island, Missouri, in 1995 was later identified as a probable hoax. The Alton record was defended in a scientific paper but has since been challenged by a conflicting family account.
Bull sharks can survive in freshwater and may travel far upriver, so reaching the St. Louis region was biologically possible. The historical evidence, however, does not justify saying that two authenticated bull sharks definitely swam up the Mississippi River all the way to St. Louis.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
What the evidence actually shows
The phrase “two bull sharks swam to St. Louis” compresses several different claims into one dramatic headline. A more accurate summary is:
| Report | What the evidence supports |
|---|---|
| Alton, Illinois, 1937 | A substantial historical account describes an 84-pound bull shark found in a commercial fish trap. The record was defended in a 1977 scientific paper, but a later local-history account disputes how the shark was obtained. |
| Rush Island, Missouri, 1995 | Once treated as the second upper-Mississippi occurrence, this report was later identified in a 2023 correction as a probable hoax. |
So, no: the available evidence does not establish that two authenticated bull sharks swam up the Mississippi River to St. Louis. It does establish that bull sharks are capable of entering freshwater, that a 1937 Alton capture was investigated and defended by scientists, and that a second report was later discredited.
#1 Best Overall
Why a bull shark could enter the Mississippi
The animal involved would have been a bull shark, Carcharhinus leucas. Unlike most sharks, bull sharks can move between salt water and fresh water. They are associated with warm coastal waters, estuaries, and rivers, and authoritative species material from NOAA notes that they can travel hundreds of miles upstream. LSU Sea Grant likewise describes bull sharks as capable of living in completely fresh water and records them as far up the Mississippi River as St. Louis.
That ability comes from the species’ unusual control of its internal water and salt balance. A bull shark is not simply tolerating a brief dip into freshwater; it can adjust its physiology well enough to remain there for extended periods.
That makes the Mississippi story biologically plausible. It does not prove that a particular shark reached Alton or Rush Island under its own power. Species capability and historical authentication are separate questions.
The 1937 Alton report
The strongest case in the story concerns Alton, Illinois, just north of the St. Louis area. According to the account examined by Jamie E. Thomerson, Thomas B. Thorson, and Ronald L. Hempel in a 1977 Copeia paper, commercial fishermen Herbert Cope and Dudge Collins were working baited fish traps in the Mississippi.
Their trap netting had reportedly been torn repeatedly. They replaced it with wire netting, and the next day found a dead bull shark in the trap. The shark was said to weigh 84 pounds.
The 1977 paper calculated the capture location as approximately 2,800 river kilometers from the Gulf of Mexico. That is an extraordinary distance for any shark, but not automatically an impossible one for a bull shark. The authors also noted that the Alton Lock and Dam was not operating until about a year after the reported capture, so it could not have blocked the shark’s movement in 1937.
Why the 1977 authors accepted the record
The scientists said they initially suspected that the story might be a hoax. They nevertheless concluded that the evidence available to them supported the record. Their reasoning included several points:
Rank #2
- They interviewed relatives of the fishermen.
- They considered it difficult for someone to transport a shark from the Gulf and successfully present it as a local catch.
- They examined photographs associated with the event.
- They found accounts that the carcass had been exhibited locally.
That conclusion is important: the Alton report was not merely a modern internet rumor. It was investigated and published as a credible zoological record in 1977.
It is also important not to overstate what that means. The paper’s conclusion reflected the evidence and interviews available to its authors. It was not the same as a modern, independently preserved specimen with a complete chain of custody.
A later account challenges the Alton story
The Alton record has since become more complicated. A 2026 article in The Telegraph presented a conflicting family account: according to the local-history story repeated there, one of the fishermen bought the shark at a St. Louis fish market and then claimed to have caught it in the river.
If true, that would undermine the central claim that the shark traveled upriver from the Gulf. But this later account is an oral-history challenge, not an independent laboratory examination of the 1937 animal. It conflicts with the 1977 paper’s interviews and evidence, but it does not conclusively settle the matter by itself.
The fairest description is therefore “scientifically reported and defended, later disputed.” Calling the Alton shark unquestionably genuine ignores the later account. Calling it definitively fake relies too heavily on a later story whose evidentiary basis is different from the 1977 investigation.
Could the water near St. Louis have been warm enough?
Temperature was the main environmental limitation discussed in the 1977 account. Bull sharks are warm-water animals, so a journey into the continental interior would not be possible under every seasonal condition.
The paper examined water temperatures measured near St. Louis during August and early September 1937 and argued that they were warm enough to permit a bull shark to reach the area. The authors still described the Alton occurrence as nearly as far upriver as could reasonably be expected, even without the later lock-and-dam obstacle.
This is useful evidence for possibility, not proof of the individual journey. Suitable temperatures explain how the 1937 report could have happened; they do not verify that it did. They also do not change the later assessment of the 1995 report.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
What happened to the 1995 Rush Island report?
The second case was reported in 1995 near the Rush Island power station in Missouri. The report concerned a shark associated with the station’s return-flow channel on the Mississippi River.
A 2021 paper treated the Alton and Rush Island reports as the only two twentieth-century upper-Mississippi bull-shark occurrences. That classification helped popularize the claim that two bull sharks had separately reached the St. Louis region.
However, a 2023 correction materially changed the status of the second case. Its abstract stated that newer evidence suggested one of the occurrences was probably a hoax. The correction’s references specifically identify Robert Hrabik’s account, “1995 Report of a shark in a power plant return flow channel at Rush Island, Mississippi River, Missouri, determined to be a hoax.”
The Rush Island case should therefore not be presented as a confirmed bull-shark capture. At most, it is a historical report that was once included in the scientific tally and later judged to be a probable hoax.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Why the headline became so convincing
The story has several real and unusual elements:
- Bull sharks genuinely can enter and survive in freshwater.
- The Mississippi River provides a continuous waterway from the Gulf of Mexico into the continental interior.
- An 84-pound shark was reportedly found in a fish trap near Alton in 1937.
- A scientific paper examined and defended that report.
- A second Missouri report was later treated as a separate occurrence before being identified as a probable hoax.
When those facts are shortened into a headline, the uncertainties disappear. “Two bull sharks swam all the way to St. Louis” sounds like a settled event count. The underlying record is instead a mixture of biological possibility, one disputed historical capture, and one report that later lost credibility.
Does this mean bull sharks live around St. Louis?
No. The evidence does not support a resident population of bull sharks in the upper Mississippi, nor does it suggest that sharks are routinely swimming around St. Louis.
Rank #4
- Used Book in Good Condition
The 2021 researchers characterized upper-Mississippi movement as rare, difficult to detect, and poorly documented. Their work called for further historical, archaeological, paleontological, and ecological research; it did not claim that bull sharks regularly inhabit the upper basin.
For readers who want more context on the species’ freshwater biology and unusual river movements, a bull shark book can be a useful educational follow-up; the Mississippi reports themselves should still be evaluated separately from general information about what the species can do.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →The bottom line on the two-shark claim
The headline is based on real research, but it is too categorical. One bull shark was reported near Alton in 1937 and defended as a valid record in a 1977 scientific account. That case was later challenged by a family story alleging that the shark came from a St. Louis fish market. The 1995 Rush Island report, once counted as a second occurrence, was later identified as a probable hoax.
The most accurate conclusion is not that two proven sharks swam to St. Louis. It is that bull sharks are physically capable of making extraordinary freshwater journeys, while the historical evidence for this particular upper-Mississippi story remains limited and disputed.
Sources and evidence trail
- The 1977 Copeia account by Jamie E. Thomerson, Thomas B. Thorson, and Ronald L. Hempel on the reported Alton bull shark.
- The 2021 MAFIS paper that treated the Alton and Rush Island reports as two twentieth-century upper-Mississippi occurrences.
- The 2023 MAFIS correction identifying newer evidence that one occurrence was probably a hoax.
- NOAA bull-shark identification and species material on freshwater movement.
- LSU Sea Grant material on bull sharks in freshwater and the Mississippi River.
- A 2026 Telegraph local-history account presenting the later challenge to the Alton narrative.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can bull sharks really live in freshwater?
Yes, bull sharks can survive in completely fresh water and can travel hundreds of miles upstream. NOAA and LSU Sea Grant materials describe this unusual ability. That proves the species can make freshwater journeys, but it does not authenticate either Mississippi report.
Was the 1937 Alton bull shark real?
The 1937 Alton report is the stronger case. A 1977 Copeia paper described an 84-pound bull shark found in a commercial fish trap and defended the record after interviews and review of photographs and local-exhibition accounts. A later family story claimed the shark had been purchased at a St. Louis fish market, so the record is best described as disputed rather than proven or debunked.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsWhat happened to the second, 1995 bull-shark report?
It was reported near the Rush Island power station in Missouri in 1995 and was initially treated by a 2021 paper as one of two upper-Mississippi occurrences. A 2023 correction cited newer evidence and a referenced account concluding that the Rush Island report was a hoax. It should not be presented as a confirmed capture.
Are bull sharks routinely swimming near St. Louis?
No. These reports do not establish a resident or routinely occurring bull-shark population in the upper Mississippi. They describe rare, disputed historical occurrences, not an established shark habitat around St. Louis.
The Bottom Line
Bottom line: Two authenticated bull sharks have not been established as having swum to St. Louis. The 1937 Alton report was scientifically defended but later disputed, while the 1995 Rush Island report was later judged a probable hoax. Bull sharks can survive in freshwater, so the journey was biologically possible—but possibility is not proof.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Recommended Free Tools
Leave a Reply