It looks like Rosa rugosa.

Definitely a rose. A closeup of the foliage would help to confirm - or negate - a rugosa ID. The foliage doesn't look crinkly enough to be rugosa from the photo.

Maybe Rosa Multiflora???

Here is a link that might be useful: Rosa multiflora

Not R multiflora, which has clusters of small white flowers, not large single pink ones. I'd say either Rosa virginiana or Rosa carolina; I always find it hard to tell them apart anyway.

WW

I can't see if any of the leaves have more than leaflets, and I don't know if your location would be consistent with this, but it could possibly be R. acicularis, a wild and native plant.

Funny, it is almost a weed here...although not right now when it is in bloom. But it is endangered in many states.

Here is a link that might be useful: states where found

Rosa multiflora var. cathayensis comes in Pink...single blooms. I'm not saying the OP's plant is this one...just throwing out a suggestion.

It would help if the OP would post a few shots with more details to aid with the ID. There are lots of "wild" roses out there. Another one to consider would be Rosa setigera.

Here is a link that might be useful: Rosa setigera

Thank you for all the responses. Obviously the plant is rosa"something". There were so many suggestions given as to what it could be.
I tend to agree with poster mytime in that this plant does grow wild around here. I see it along some of the walking trails near our river and in the canyon.
Just for further clarification, I have posted some additional pics for review. They were done with my cell phone, so not the best, but I think a couple of them give better detail on the foliage.

Here is a link that might be useful: Rosa ???

My money's on Rosa acicularis.

Based on the new photos, I will rule out R. acicularis, a plant I am intimately familiar with, due to having a lot of it (understatement) that I come into frequent contact with (ouch). That frequent, painful contact is what probably rules out "prickly wild rose" as the correct ID, as when I blew up the pictures, there aren't many prickles to be seen. Also, the serrated margins look just a little enough different to be wrong.

R. blanda then?

Here is a link that might be useful: SMOOTH ROSE

Webslinger, please tell us at the least which state you live in...that could help us with ID, since it appears to be growing wild...that way we can look at both native and naturalized species of your area.

Actually, the species might not matter to you...it's a rose and in the way. I get that. But the mystery lovers among us like positive IDs. We all learn from them!

It isn't R. rugosa, either.

I'd like to see a closeup of the vine/cane at it's thickest point.

I wasn't sure if including zone 4 was enough or not. I am in Provo, UT. I will take a close up pic of the vine/cane at its thickest point for further clarification. That will be done on a post later this evening.

Rosa woodsii?

I took a couple of pictures of the vine/cane per donn_'s request. Again, I am located in UT (zone 4). I believe carol23 may have identified it correctly, but I'm not the expert. Again, this rose grows wild in my area and my backyard. I have two groves of them. The vine/cane can grow to 8 ft. or more in length. Don't let the foliage fool you. This flower is very prickly with thorns, especially near the base of the vine/cane.

Here is a link that might be useful: Rosa woodsii??