I am studying square of opposition. Some dogs have fleas is shown in the text as (see bottom left sentence in image)
$\neg \forall x [D_{x} \supset \neg F_{x}]$
Why is it not (notice the negation changed) ?
$\forall x [\neg D_{x} \supset \neg F_{x}]$
Reason 1
Reason I say so is because the second option translates into English pretty well: "Some dogs have fleas" is equivalent to "Not all dogs have not fleas" which is equivalent to "For all X, if x is not dog then x has not fleas" which is what the 2nd option says
As a quick reference, See Tidman mentions english translation in 7.3 that $\forall x [D_{x} \supset F_{x}]$ translates "For all x , if x is a dog then it has fleas"
Reason 2
Secondly $\neg \forall x$ translates into something funny like "For all not x" and messes with the idea of "universe of discourse"

Because "Some dogs have fleas" is the same as "Not all dogs have no fleas".
The last one is symbolized with : $\lnot \forall x (Dog(x) \to \lnot Fleas(x))$.
This in turn is equivalent to : $\exists x (Dog(x) \land Fleas(x))$, which is the equivalent symbolization of "Some dogs have fleas".
Your proposed symbolization : $\forall x (\lnot Dog(x) \to \lnot Fleas(x))$ means that : "Every object in the universe, if it is not a dog, it has no fleas", which means : "Every object in the universe, if it has fleas, then it is a dog", and this is not the same as "Some dogs have fleas".
$¬∀x$ does not translate into something funny like "For all not x" but in "Not for all x", i.e. into "Some x not".