This is one of those kind of simple, kind of complicated answers. Basically, no is the simple answer.

Part of the problem here is the assumption that people inevitably have mythologized understandings of important organisms or animals in their environments. As a basic assumption, this is already a problem. People sometimes just basically deal with whatever that is. Bull sharks are a particularly good example. The Zambezi downriver of Lake Kariba (after the dam building)? People living there have enough to worry about in a basic ecosystem sense, and many of their concerns are more visible and consistent with the wider world of southern Africa (like crocodiles).

I'm prepared to hear from someone with a much finer sense of the ethnohistorical worldview of people at the end of the Zambezi in Mozambique that bull sharks are a big deal in imaginative terms, but there's no reason to presuppose that this must be the case. (This is especially complicated by the fact that the people resident there now, in some cases, are relatively recent migrants.) There are many human cultures of long standing in many parts of the world that have basically treated organisms in their environment in matter-of-fact ways. Sharks might be especially an example--if you're not a maritime culture on a fundamental level, what's beneath the water is interesting and important and worth talking about pragmatically but you aren't going to necessarily invest a lot of imaginative effort in it. If I asked "do surf fishers in Delaware have mythological ideas about halibut", you'd be like, "what?" Same thing here, as far as I know.